Skip to main content

Full text of "ERIC ED248338: Federal Pay Equity Act of 1984. Part 1. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Compensation and Employee Benefits of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, House of Representatives, Ninety-Eighth Congress, Second Session on H.R. 4599...and H.R. 5092. (April 3-4, 1984)."

See other formats 


DOCUMENT RESUME 



248 38'e 



/ 



CE* 0 39 591 



TI«TLE 



INSTITUTION 

PUB DATE 
NOTE- 
PUB TYPE 



EDRS PRICE 
DESCRIPTORS 



IDENTIFIERS 
ABSTRACT 



Federal 'Pay Equity Act of 1984. Part 1. Hearings ' 
before the .Subcommittee on Compensation and Employee 
Benefits of the Committee on Post Office and Civil 
Service, House Representatives, Ninety-Eighth 
Congress, Second Session on H.R. 4599... and H'.R. 
5092^ (April 3-4 , 1984) . 

Concfres? of the U. S., Washington, D. C. House 
Committee- on Post Office and Civil Service. 
Apr 84 ^ • 

373p, ; Parts of this document may not reproduce well 
due to small type. i 

Legal/Legislative/Regulato^y Materials (090) — 
Viewpoints (120) 

MF01/PC15 Plus Postage. 

Adults; Care/er Education; *Employment Practices; 
Equal Opportunities (Jobs); *Federal Legislation; 
Federal Regulation; *Females; Governmeift Employees; 
*Government Role; Hearings; Personnel Evaluation; 
*Salary Wage Differentials; *Sex Discrimination 
Comparable Worthy Congress 9/8th 



\ 



This (jlocument^ contains two congressional hearings'on 
H.R. 4599, the Federal Pay Equity Act ot 1984, and, H.R. 5092, the Pay 
Equity Act of 1984. These bills would mandate the Office of Personnel 
Management to study wage discrepancies in the Federal classification 
structure and' to 'devise a more equi table - job evaluatipn program and 
would require periodic detailed reports of actions of various 
agencies to enforce Federal laws prohibiting wage discrimination. 
Testimony includes statements from Representatives in Congress, the 
Lieutenant Governor of California, and indivi^duals represer^ting the • 
National Organization for Women; National Education Association; 
Service Employees I n t^rna ti-^^l Union, AFL-CIO; National*" Pay Equity 
Committee; American As"sociat^^ of Unrversity Women; Office "of 
Personnel Man'agenien t.; Communications Workers of America; American 
Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; Equal 
EmpliDyment Qpportunity Commission; Amer ican - Feder at i on of Government 
Employees, AFL-CIO*;' American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO; American 
Nurses' As.sociat ion ; Federally Employed Women, Inc.; 9 to, 5 National 
Association of Working Women; ^ati»nal Fe^deration of Federal 
Employees; National Association of Government Employees; American 
Society for Personnel Management; AFL-CIO; Program of Policy Researcft* 
on Women. ani^ Families; International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union; 
American Library Association; Association of Flight Attendants; and 
Special Libraries 'Association . (YLB) 



*********** ic* *************************** 

* Reproducti*on3 supplied -by EDRS are th& best that can be made 

* froir;, the original document. 

******************************* i:-k*****'^-kti<iiie*i;-fci:i:*****i:*i(-f:i(.f( * ^ ******** 



/ 



FEDERAL PAY EQUITY ACT OF 1^84 ' 



I'AItT I 



^ HEARINGS * . 

HKKOKK TlIK 

si:h('()MMitt1':k on ^ 
comi'knsatiox and hml'lovkk hhnfj'tfs 

C\| OK THK 

^ ; - rt)MMITTKF] a\ 

POST OFFId^^'ANI) CIVIL SF.RVKM^] • 
HOUSE OF RFPRFSFNTATIVFS 

NINKTY-EKiHTH CONCJRESS 

V 

SI'X'ONi) SKSSION • 
ON 

, - , U.K. 1599 

' A HILL TO PROMOTK I^\Y KQUITY AND .KLIMINATK (MsRTAIN WA(;ivSKT 
TINd rKA(TI(^KVi WITHIN THK FKDKRAL TIVIL SKRVICK SYSTKM 
WHK^H.DISCRIMINATK ON THK BASIS OK SKX' RA(^K. OR KTHNrcMTY 
AND RKwSULT IN DISCRIMINATORY W/VOK DIKKI^;RKNTIALS , ^ 

^ H.K.. 5092 

'A RILL TO^iKQUIRK PKRI()DI(\ DKTAILKI) RKRORTS TO THK I'RKSIDKNT 
AND) THK 0()N(;RKSS^ BY THK KQUAL KMIM.OYMKNT ()I%ORTUNITY 
(X)MMISSI()N, THK SEdiKTARY OK LABOR, AND THK A'lTORNKY (JKN- 
KRAL .I)KS(^RIBIN(; ACTIONS TAKKN TO KNKORCK KKDKRAL LAWS 
RROHIBITINO I)IS(^RIMINATI()N 'iN (X)Mi^KNSATI()N ON THK BASI8 OK 
SKX, RA(T:, RKLUnON, (X)LyR, OR NATIONAyORKHN AND TO RKAK- 
KIRM THK PR()VISK)NS IN KKDKRAL LA W^ WHICH DKCLARK THAT 
l^fQUAL !>AY SHOULD BE PROVIDKD KOR WORK OK KQUAL VAFAIK 

APRIL :! AND 4", li)K4 « 

^ Serial No. 98-29. 

IViiited for the use of the ('Oininittee on RoBt Office and Civil Service 



I 

ERIC 



U • OifAHTMINT or lOOCATKM* 

V.S. (;<)VKRNMKNT PRINTINC; OFTICR ^at'onai .N*t.T.,rf or tnucATKi** 

3^{X)3 0 washin(;ton : 1984 • ' ..,-0 

K , • 



) 



COMMi rrKK ON POST OKI'U'KvAM) j^:K\*I('K 



C.KNK TAVl.nK Mivvuun 
HKN.IA.MIN A (ill.MAN. Nrw 
1'()M COKCOKAN. Illitiniv 
.lAMKS A- COrUTKU. Nru Jr 
CIIAKI.KS I'ASIIAVAN. .Ik , ( 
WILLIAM K DANNKMKYKK. 
DANIKI. H CKANK. \\\uun> 
KKANK n WOi.F. Vit>:niia 
I'ONNIK MACK. Khuid.-i 



VVII.MAM I) KOKl). 
MOKKIS K (M)ALI.. An/nna 
WILLIAM ililLLiCLAY. M 
I'ATUh'lA sen kOKDKK. Colniad., 
KOHKUr (iAKCIA Srv. York 
MICKKY LKLAM). IVx.i^ 
I)<)N ALIiOSTA. Mi.'}ii<;ari 
(M S YA'LIUJN. iN'rinsvlvarn.-i . 
MAKY KOSK OAKAK' i))x\o 
KATIK HALL. Indiana 
(IKKin- SIKOKSKL MnmrMHa 
FRANK MfCLOSKKY. Iti-Iiana ' 
(lAUY L ACKKkMAN. \rw York 
^{()\ mJJHU), V.r^iri Island^ 
lM)l*(;i,AS H liOSCO. (•ald.)rma 
MKKX'YN M DYMALLY. faliloirna 

l oM DkN i i.ia, Sttt/f Di/t'i tuf 

I'ATHK'tA I'' KisSI Kit. Ih'{Uit\ "^tilff l)ur,tn, d ful i Iff { 'Ir/k 
'JoSKPH A KlSUKH. \fltt<Utt\ Stuff huf'i ttU- 



Yofk . 

alitnt Ilia 
( alitiitnia 



SrHCOMMriTKK ON COMPKNSATION* ANr) Km IM.OY KK *HkN KKITS 
MAKY KOSKOAKAK. Ohio. (7>,</; 

MICKKY LKLANI). Trxas WILLIAM K DAW KMKYKK. ( alih.r n1a 

I)Or(;LAS H IiOS(H;. Cahlorma CONNIi: MACK Flotida 

FKANK M<-CL()SKLY. Itnliana 

Jkhky Ki.kj'NKH. Siifm/nnn/ffrr Sttiff Diruutut 



Mr) 



ERIC 



J 



C O N T E N T S 



AI^RII, IHM 

Stalcnu'iU i)f ' ' J*»K<- 

\\Uni Michael 1) l^anies. a US Rcpn'scrUalivc in Con^Mcss (Voin the 

Slalr of Maryland VI 

Won !iarl)ara A Mikulski. a U.S. Rt'[)rcs('ntativc in (^)nKn'?is from the 

SlaU' of Maryland IT) 

Hon Marry Ka[)lur. a U S. Rcproscniaiivc; m Congress Ironi the SlaU* of ' 

Ohio .. ■ ^ IT 

Hon Slcny H !Ioyei , a U S licpresenlalivc in Uon^ress Ironi ihc Slale ol 

Maryland 1^ 

.Jac(|ueline Jackson 

Joan A Mondale. ^1 

( Ileiinis 'IVr Wisscha ^ -'^> 

lion Martha Keycs, fornior I{(»prfscntativc in Congress Ironi ihe Slalc ol 

Kjuisas , 

Judy (ioldsniilh. [)r('si(Ioiil. National Organi/.alion lor Women .'H 

Mary Halwood Fulrell. president. National lOducation Association " ^\ 

John J Sweeney, [)resideiit. Service Kinf)loyees Int(»rnational Union. 

AH*. (1() . ' : ) ^ : 

'Nan<7 Keder. chair. National I*ay Iviuity Uonuinttee til) 

(fuincalee Brown, executive director. American Association ol University 

Women , , , ' ' . 

!)r DonaJd >I Devine. Director of U.S. OfUce ol IN»rsonnel MaiiaK^'ment 
Florinc* Koole. assistant to executive vice president. ( 'ominunications 

Workers ol-^merica , H^'^ 

Soma .JohnsoiT^citizeti lor I^resident ^110 

ATRIL i. \\)X\ ^ 

Statement ol 

Hon \ah} McCarthy, Lieutenant ( Jovernopol t he State ol Calilbrnia 1^0 

Hon James 1^ ()l)erstar, a U S, Re[)reMentative in U(>«Kress from the 

State ol Minnesota ) I" F^^i 

Hon Jarties I^ates. a U S Re[)res(Mitative in Congress IVorn the $t«'ffe of 

California * ^ 1^7 

Diana RcK'k, director of women's acUvities. American Federation of State, 
County, and Municipal Km[)loyees. accotn[)anied by Rita Wallace, I'xix- 
utive vic(* [)r(»Hi(ient. Nassau lyocal Civil S(*rvice Kmployees Asw)C'iation 12!) 
Rita Walhtce. exectitive vice [)resident, Nassau Local Civil Servjce Hriv 

[)loyees AsHociation. AF'SCMK Local UHHJ * ' L''>^t 

Clarence Thomas. Chairman. Kqual ()[)iM)rtunity ('ommission. accompa 
nied by Allison Duncan. Office of the Chairman; and Klrzab(*th Thorn 

ton. Office of Ix'Kal Counsel ' L"")!)* 

Kenneth Blaylock. president, American Federation of (Jovernnumt F]m- 

ployeesiAFLCIO) ^ ^ 

Barbara B Hutchison, director, women's department, American Federa 

lion of (Jovernment Km[)loye(»s (AFL CIO) 2.1)7 

Moe Hiller» [)resident. American Postal Workers Ikiion. AFL ('I(),>accom • 
panied ,hy Josie McMillian, president. New York- Metro Area! I'ostal 

Union ' ^ ^ ^ 212 

Ia^h Acord. executive administrator of Illinois N-ttrses' Associal;ion on^ 

Ix'half of Am(^ri(*an Nurses' Association ^ ; 221 

Delores Burton, [)r(»sident. Federally iOm[)l()yed Women. Inc 2*tr) 

(IJI) : 



ERLC 



IV 

I 



Statcmi'iit ot Contirnu'd . 

Clit'ryl WiiinwriKlU. CornuM- *vu't' 'prcsulcnl, ol' |) to Njitmiinl Association 

ol VVorkini:; Womrn 
t allH'rmc Wjn'hlcr. K^'ncral counM'l lor tlir Njitio^ral FrdcuUion <>! Vvdn 

\\\ Kinplovrt'S V, ;j 

t'vnthia ncMiton. k^'ihtmI counsel U)v Nationat Assocration ()( (nncrn 

nu'nt Kniployccs . . • 'J,:^) 

Phyllis i^clilafly, prcsidcai . I'la^lc I'uinm 'Ji;;, 
I.awn'ru'r X I.orixw. AiT)frK'an Society lor I'crsonnd Mana^cnuMU ISW 
Statcnu'iUs suhnnllcti by 

Iloa lX)n Alhosla. a l-S R(»[)rcscntativ(* m CoLiKrcss Iroiti the Stale ol 

Mu^hi^an . j l^O 

lion Lane Kvans. a I'S He{)resental ive in vln\ivv>s lr«>rn the Stale o| 

Illinois . . . \ 1 

Hon VVilliain K. Danneineyer. a I'S Kepfesentat ive m fon^ress trorn 

the Slate ot ( ahlonna f, 
Hon (leraldme Fenaro. a I'S He[)reseiitative in Congress Ironi llie 

Stale of New York . . 

Hon Hamilton Kisli, . a I'.S. Uepresenlative in Con^^ress Ironi t]#' 

State (>r New York ^ \[) 

Hon Harney Frank, a US Ke[)iesentat ive in t'oli^^ress Iroin the State ol' 

Massachusetts 11 
Fahe Kirkland. president. Arnericaii Fe<lrratioti of Fal>or and foiiKress ol " 

In<lust rial Or Kani/.al ions J - 117 

June O'Neill, diredor. From-rfni ol Folicy Kesearch on Women an(l. Fanii 

lies at the Urban hislitute. VVashni^MoiK I) ( ' ' . 

'Judith Finn, econonnst and political scientist. Oak Hidne. Tenii 'JIJI'. 

Sol r Chaikin. president. lnternatit)nal Fadies' ( iarnient Workers" [Iniori :iOO 
Kileen I) (ooke. din^cloc. American l,il>rarv Association Washiimton 
. Onice . 

landa A Fucliala. [)resi(Ient, Association 1)1 Flight Altendanls 'M\ 

Kclwm U t'larke. presntent, F H Ularke Associates. Inc o M\ 

l^iheil .] Van Der Vfdde. research assistanl. Urban Uei;ler, Ulevelaiid 

State I hnversily . , . ;^1>^ 

Terry Fe(' Hart. [>resideiit. Federally Fm[)loy(H! Women he^^al and Kduca- 

lional Fund, iiic . ;^v)|; 

Fh/.abeth Boyer. presulent. Women's Kquily Action League ol' Ohio WW'l 
David K Bender. Vh I) . executive diiector.\SpeciaI I.il)raries Association . WTi 

Hon Marv O B()yle, Ohio nt>use of Representat ives Majority Wliip 

( '.oldie Wa^^fialter. consultant .. WW) 

Susan K Meisinger. Deputy Under^ecrelarv lor Kiiif)lovment St.'indards. , 

US Department of Labor % 

Atlditional material 

US 4)i.strict Court lor the District ol C ohiinbia. Civil Action No X'l l!):iH: 

Mur^nn^t Mat^' (irumhmv, plarntill. v. I'nifrd States, c/ uL. (ieiendants 'Ml 



ERIC V 



ERIC 



FKDEKAL PAY VAIVVV\ ACT OF 19SI 



TI KSDAV, APRIL \W[ 

Hol'SK (t\- RkI'KKSKN TATIViiS, 

^ ("oMMrriKK oSi Post Okkick and Civii. Skuvick, 

Sl'HCOMiVll'ITKK ON C'OMI'KNSATION AND KmIM.OYKK BkNKFITS, 

' Washinfilon, !).('. 

Tlu- sulx-oniniittec met, [)Uisuant to call, i\\ a.m., in room 

Rayhuni House Olfice Building, Hon. Mary, Rose Oakar \nv- 

siHiriK 7^ 
' Ms. Oakak. Tlu' Sabcommittec on ( oin[)t'n?sation and hmploycc? 

Benefits will come to order. 

Today the subcommittee will begin a series ol hearings on H.li. 
■ir,!)!). tile Federal Pav Kcjuitv Act. of PlSl, and H.R. aODi, the Pay 
Iviuilv Act ol 'lilSl; -1 days oi' hearings will J^e held in Washington, 
[).(". i will c()m[)lete the series in field hearings throughout the 
country duViiig^the summer. I am pleased to have so luany fine wit,- 
nesses" a|)pearing today, and we are very anxious for their 

testirnoiiv ' , , i -.u 

In the fall of V.)X'l, 1 was fortunate enough to chair, along with 
Congresswomen Pat Schroeder and (leraldine Ferraro, the first 
congressional hearings on pay equity. During these heapmgs. we 
confirnied thi* sex-based wage discrimination is pervasive in the 
private and' public sectors. 

Witnesses at the hearings urged that in order to eliminate the.se 
discriminatory pra(;tices, the Federal Government iiMs to be ag- 
gressive in enforcing the current laws. We were in fact promised 
increased enforcement efforts by administration officials. 

Ifnldrtunatelv, since that time, it appears that the administra- 
tion has failed to keep faith with the working women ol this coun- 
try. While vigorous litigation and bargaining efforts are being pur- 
sued' by .several major unions, and State and local governments 
continue to examine their pay structures for di.serimination against 
women, the Federal (]overnment'is now doing nothing. 

In fact, the administration may move from benign neglect to 
active o^iposition within the weeks ahead by formally .casting its lot 
in Fede'ral court with vocaL£2PF)onents to [)ay ecjuity. 

The^Kqual Vny Act of VMYA [)rohibits an eni[)loyer Ironi [)aying a 
woman less than a man if they are performing the same job which 
rt'ouires equal skill, effort, and responsibility. Simihirly, the Civil 
Rights Act of l!)til, title VII, prohil)its employers Irom paying 
women lower wages even when job cyntent dillers. 

Kven though these laws are 20 years old, women still average 'U) 
percent less in earnings than men. In women earned (ili.Ob 

O 



» 

^ cents lor eve ty dollar cariu'd l)y men In l!)r,i), tlii.. dronnrd to (i2 
cents, and has remained at that level ever suuc. 

In a very real sense, women are k'oin^ l)atkuard despite the com- 
[niHiient ol our .Nation to eliminate discrii;iinat ion in all lacets of 
lile I-or women it is a catchX^J situation, l.ow wa^es as workers 
translat(;s into t-veii lower S(Hial securitv and pension hciielits m 
their retirement years. 

I> It any wonder that the poorest person in our countrv is a 
woman over li.)'.' 

Two decades alter the Ktiual I'ay Act and Civil Hi>^ tits' .Art tli(> 
.waf.;.' dillerentjal has remained virtuallv unchaiiKed despite the 
fact that nearly half ol all t)a(;helors and masters -deKrees arc now 
earned l)y women. Hoth black and, .white women who are college 
K'lac nates hav(> lower mean earninf^V; than while men with eiuhth 
Kcade educations. 

It IS still true that the more an occupation is dominated bv 
women the less it {)ays. The average annual .salarv for a secretary 
IS nearly .>J.()()() a year les.-^ than aM ruckdriver. l'riva.te household 
workers. .),) percent ol wliom are women, earn less than half of 
• what IS paid a janitor 

And most child-care workers, are paid l(>.ss than do^'-pound at- 
tendants. Our |)ets .seem to he more im[)ortant tlian our children 
What a sad commentary lor the future of this coufitry. 

Not only are women clu.stered in low-paving occu|)ations hut ac- 
cording to a report of the National A^ademv of Science, they are 
more likely than men to be emploved in low-paving firms This 
clustorinu IS also true ol tnir FederahCovernment. " 

In addition. !)() percent of all single parents are women ;^") per- 
cent o( whom lall below the povertv line Fijty-three percent of all ' 
^ women now work, an increa.se of ;^() pernjit since !!):,(). Further- 
more, women who maintain families avera^^e $](),()()() a vear"while 
two-earner cou{)les earn approximately .S'JS.OOO. 

Why does the wa^e Kap persist between men and women''' Is It ., 
simply that women's work is valued le.ss th(m menV.' Is the law ih^-"' 
ade(|uate in protecting women workers'.^ j(#r is tlie issue of pay di.s- 
crimination misunderstood'.^ 

Fart of the reason that' .sex-ba.sed wa^e di.scriminat ion exists de- 
.spite current lavy is tliat women remain in t radit ionulk femafe- 
donunated occupations; Sj percent of clerical workers. <)(i percent of 
nurj^'s. and H2 percyit of elementary schoolteachers are wopien. 

In my opmion.-^^'achers. nurses, and clerical workers are paid 
less by virtue ol their gender and their roles m society, and not be- 
cause their occupations are of le.ss valuf to thi.s Nation. 
^ Some would ar^ue that by opening career- opportunities for 
■wonum m traditionally male-dominant jobs, wa^e discrimination 
will eventually disappear But the jobs that women [)erform are es- 
.sf-ntial to our .society We. our children, our .senior citi/.ens all 
Americans need quality health care. The future of our country is 
(iepenflent on our educational .system. 

Rather than-simply declaring victcny. when women attorneys are 
equal in number to men. we need to reexamine woman's work and 
establish the true value'of these occupations. We need to attack 
^ sex-ba.sed wa^e discrimination with the .same 'spirit and Cffura.'e a 
P the Iroedom riders of a generation ayo. 



V 



ERIC 



• • ■ • t 

Unibri activity tlirnii^li cnllcc'l tvc bar^^aiiiiiiK and litigation liaj>;' 
proved oflivtivv in eliminating pay inequity. Hut this i^ a, cosily, 
process, ahd riut availal)le to every wonian \^o works. 'State* and 
local K^)V(»rnnieiits ar(^ also iK^^inninj^' to look at tFieir own pay ' .. 
slruclurt^ to (h^tcMtaiiru' rw liet lieu .sex-f>ased wu^(s di,>crijnnia^ iori 
exists. We c'an all l^\p[)kuul and fnid encouragement ' ni the recent 
court derision Ml t h(; ^ate of Washinuton. ; . . 

TorpoVations are^also stalling to \'oluntjiril>- examine their pay 
[vaclices. Only the Ked(^ral ( lovcMainuMit* is standin^v niute, while 
Minriesota. Corniecticut . and soriie cities in Calilornia are taking* al- 
liraiiative action to eliminate wl^^e discrimination in various occu- 
pations. Tins administration seems to he denoting its (Mier^v to de- 
iirun^ l.ernts. not to enforcing tjie present laws. 

'Members ol' Congress on botli sides of the aisle hav^ inti'oducVd 
leKi'^kilion in reaction to tlu^ P'ederal -f^over'nnuMU s lack ol coinmit- 
inent. if not outri|.iht opposition to pa5 (Mjuity. L am a I'lrni "ijeliever 
^vM llie laws winch are in place 'provide ade(|uate prot^'ction ^) can- 
plovees. The le^i>lation that I lia^'e introduced ilfustr\iles 4hat 
heliei; 

. The adniinist^rat ii)n should he an advocate lor pay e(|uity, hut rt 
IS just the opposite Instea*(j ol CMlorcint^lhe law, it is thwar'tin^ ihv 
law. My legislation would r'ecjuii-e the adrninist rat ion to fulfill its 
enfor'C(tment duties* aiul to he an advocate T(a* pay e(|uit:y. 

One l)ill. H.K, l-")!)!!, nian^lates tlu^ Office of I\M*sonne1 Mana^(e-.^ 
nient to study and iden^fy tlie wa^t' discre[)ancies in th(» Federal 
nlas<ification stiaicluie. and to devise a mni'e ecjuitahle' ioh;evalua« 
tion program If >ucces.^fuL tlie Fi'd(-ral structure shouUi [)K(nid(\ci 
w<jrkirr]^i exaniple to tlie pri\'ate sector and the States 

My second l)ill woulrl require {)eriodic detaih^'d repoi'ts 'to the 
President and Oon^^rrss [)v \hv Vx\un\ Kniployment Opportunity 
Oomnussion, tlie Attorney (jener'al. and the I)e[)ar'l nient "'of M.ahor 
descril)inK^ the actions taken hy these n^t.'ncie^s to (Mifoice Federal 
lau s proliil)it iri|4 wa^t' (iiscrir>unatio^ 

It ' rio s(vr(a tliat tlie FFOOs activity. if*'I can even t'lst^ the 
teraii. leaves nuudi to desire^l It seefns thai ♦the only vvA activi- 
ty at this agency is tracking it.^ K'*uwin|^ Mivent(a"y (if uu[)rocessed 
sex based- waj^e d iscTimi nat ion chari4(^s in ^ases 

It is my hope that this u'ill soon chan^^e. ;lru1 that the legislation 
that I am sponsoring alori^^wil fi many cosponsors will proin[)t *t lie 
Federal ( JovermiK^nl to take a harrk ser ious look at pay equity, and 
tliat this administration wi.ll finally ht^^in tp fulfill its statutory I'e- 
s|)orisihilities. 

I want* to niake clea-rjor* tlie record t-i^at W(* did inj^ile'the Pi*esi . 
dent. tli(^ officials from the Departmeri^^. Justice. iIk^ Labor* I)e- 
|)aVtnient to [jar;t ici[)at in th(^se hear:iri?^<nhifortunately. thev^ 
s[)ectfully decluK^l. and I am sor ry to say that they are not ^oin^' 
l)e h(»r*e 

} lovf(>veryat tomor row's 'heafan^s. we will have Olarence Thomas, 
who is Ohairaiian of the KKOC. and other' very fine or'K'<'un/at ions. 
Phyllis Schlafly will he t^^stifiyin^ tomorrow alon^ with some^ 
otlier'^ that the !iiiriorit\ has su^^ested that we iruit(v 

We are very happy to have this hearing We ar*e ^o*ateful that 
th(» witn(^ss(^s in today's hearfn^ are a4)[)eariri^. And now I wouhi 
like to ask my colh^a^ues if th(^v would have a statcniiMit. 



ERLC \ 

4 

i. 



. * * Mr. H(fec(f. - \ ' . , 

' Mr. Bosco. Thank you, Mhdcmi X'liair * /^^nd in delViviu'c to the 
p('()ph.»^whiy an» waiting to t(^stil'V.i will ofTc^r n^v testimony hitcr. I 
do, hj)VV(.'V^r, want to thanl< you lor b^'in^mK this niattei* into locus 
for^ur^ coiiHiiittec. It is very chi>i;acterist ic ol you to he eoncerued 
for working'' |)eo[)le, hoth nien aiuf women Aird I am looking Ibr 
ward to thij> j!-day [uvu*in^..SQ that vv(^ can finally he^in to resolve 
thes(* [)r()hUMns Thank you 

Ms. Oakak. Thank vou verv much. y 

Mr. I4and. * " - ^ 

Mr, l.KKANi). Thank you, MaciatTi ('liair'j)(M*son. I would lik(» to 
^ tak(» this of)[)()rtunity to thank you for hojdin^ these luNuan^s on 
the critical issue of pay etiuity for woiikmi. I am hei*e to n^dTirm 
my longstanding heli.ef in (^quality for woiik^ik and to jtnve su[)port 
^o tbo id(»a (Tf (»qual [)ay for (,»(iual work r(»^ardless of s(»xT 

It is sad and somewhat discoui-a^in^^ that 1^0 yeai\s aft(M' the Civil 
Rights Act, which niandaU^d e(juality for all Americans reKardl(^ss 
of rac(» or s»x. that w(» ar(\ still c()ne(»rned with (economic racism 
and bik^otry t'hat kvvp wonu^n and min()riti(^s at the bottom of the 
socio-economic laddt^r. ' , 

I am (^ncouraK'^'d'this mornin^^ how(»ver, by the lon^ list of distin- 
K^uish(*d witn(\ssesMuere to'liiuhli^ht the lu^ed to str(»nKth(en (^xistin^ 
.h^Kisiation and policy that is su[)[)osL»d to insure^ ecjual [)ay for equal 
^* work. It is jmy hope that this 3|Lip[)ort from our coll(»aKU(\s and 
others will Umd to (eventual [)assaK^e of the [)ay equity measures 
that you have introduced. I thank you. 

Ms. Oakar. Thank you very much. 

Mr. McC'loskey. 

Mr. MrChosKKY Madam Chair, I would just lik(» to thank you for 
y(jur distin^'uished leade^rship in this area. I am really looking Ibr- 
ward to these Z days ol' hearings, and [)arti'cularly hearing from our 
distinguishe^d testaments today. So thank you so muc[i, 

Ms. Oakak. Thank you. We nn' ha[)[)y to have Mr. Dymally who 
is not a me^niber of ihv committc^e, but certainly a champion in this 
i\nn\. We are grateful to the Foreign Reflations Committee for al- 
.lowin>( us to use their rv)om, and you are a .distinguished member of 
that cummittet^ / 

Mr. Dymally, we are glad to have you her(\ 

Mr. Dymally. Thank you. 

Ms, Oak AH. Would, y('iu liki^ to say a few words'^ 
Mr. DvMAULY. I simply wlint to identify myself with the remarks 
of my colU^agues, / 

Ms.' Oakak. Thank you very much. 

|Th(* ("hair has statements from the following Members which 
will bv placed in^-the record at this point: Mr. Kvans, Mr. Danne- 
meyer, Ms. Ferraro, Mr. Fish, and Mr. Frank.) 

Statkmknt ok Hon Lank IOvans, a RKPKF^sKNTArrvK rN (*()N(a<h:.ss Fkom tnK Statk 

OF Il.MNOIS 

Madam Chair, over the past two decades wonieri^have been enterinj^ theifcbor 
force in uriprec(Mi(^nt(^d nunibc^rs Tbey bave achieved the sarn(^ (educational lev(»L as 
Ufeir male counterparts, and bave bec^n rr'COKniz-^'d as f)art of our country's pool of 
full tim(» car*tH'r workers Vc^t their wa^es do not reflect these trc^fnendous ^ains. For 
every dollar earned by a nnan. a woman earns less than GO cent.s~a figure that has 



ERIC 



n'niairicd virtually uiuhaiiKed iIuoukIiouI this Ui\xr in ^routh ol' \hv Icnialc hihor 
lorcc 

During' the ilDs and "TOs. h'^islalion uas passed and court cases ((ui^du (jvrr the 
(•(jual pay lor ecjual work and e(|ual eiiiph)ynu'nt opportunitN issues It was assumed 
that these measures \\ouU\ be the mortar whuh couhi eventually Till u) the wa^c 
i^np This has not Ix'en the ease, and the raised eonseiousness of workers e<>u[)led 
withMhis hard reality havf provided llie catalyst lor the movement towards a coiii- 
[)arahle wortli theory 

The concept that johs dominated hy women may he valued les.s not hecause ol 
skills re«iuired or joi) content hut Ixrause tfiey are 'women s jobs ' luas caused poll 
cies instituted to eliminate sex discriminatioti to undergo serious attack and reas- 
sessment l)y sup[)orters and opponents alike Sup{K)rlers ar^uk* that the ('(jual [)ay 
lor u(]ual work standard has not been a[)plied where job se^^reKation exists because 
the Kijual Pay Act applies only to those j(jbs in whuh both wonu'ii and men are 
employed Tfierefore. women m sex se^^reKated jobs r'arelv obtain rebel under the 
K(}ual Pai^Xct 

It IS lime to luid a way around \he barrier to the achievement ol true pav ('(juity 
(or w<mien that is presented by a se^reKaled job market 1! K ir>!l}). the Federal Km 
ployee Pay Kcjuity Act, a bill which mandates moreu;(]uitable wa^^e determinations 
for Federal employees, would affect the nearlv ll,(M)ll Federal employees in the 17th 
CoiiKressional District of Illinois M R. the Fay Fcjuitv Act of'liiS-l. would re- 

quire [M'riodic, detailed reports to the Fresidenl and Congress bv the KK()(\ the De- 
partment of Labor, the I)e^)artmenl of Justice and the Oflku* of Fer.sonnel Manage- 
ment describing the action.^ taken to enforce Federal laws prohibiting pay di,scrimi- 
nation on the basis of sex. race, r(di^don or national oriKin 

Madam (*hair. the comi)ar;ihle worth principle K"os eonsiderablv further than our 
Ijiajrrent laws prohibitiiiK wa^f discriminat ion. which hix^r be«n ineffective in reduc- 
|k.iK the overall dis[)arity between the earned incomes of men and women I strongly* 
^upporl these mejLsures as vital to the realization of llie ^oal of true equality for the 
women and men of t his ^^reat country 

StatkmknT'ok Hon Wimjani^': IJIannkmkykk, a Rkpkkskntativk in Conckk.ss 

From THK StATK OK ^Al.lKOKNIA 

Thank you. Madam Chair I welcome our witnesses and observers to these two 
(lays of hearings on MR 1.')!^!) and MR afJOJ, bills which would require various federal 
a^encies to determine the level of |)ay di.scriminat ion against women in the private 
and public workplace under the theory of comparable worth. 

Jane Bryant Qumn oP Newsweek .said ccmiparable worth is "gc^^^^^^' t)ie 
money i,ssuu of the lliXHs, <\is economic impact exceeding that of th^^^HLnion 
movement of the IJ^'iOs" (Newsweek, January HISI, [). (ifj) ' ^^^i 

Weliear that women are paid ll'^^; of wl7at men are [)aid and' that this proves 
di,scriminati()n We. hear about the "femini/^ition of |M)verty " The'Chair says th? kL 2 
of women in our nation are poor. We heat that the Fqual l*ay Act of \\H\A and 
Title VII of thp Civil Rights Act of llMMJiave failed to narrow the wage gap fn'tween 
men and women and that we need new laws to comba*t sex discrimination . Why are 
women moving so rajjidJ^ujUo the workforce if their relative wage disadvantage has 
not declijjjed'^ All i^^ihi' above is very depressing news for women. 'I'he [)robiem is 
that we don't chiyfjenge .some of the numbi'rs and that we dgn't read beyond the / 
headlines. ' i ^ ' 

Ix't me be clear. There is discrimination against women. There is .stupid, illegal 
treatment of female applicants and employees. But statistics do not sp^'ak for them- 
selves. l.^t us not bi* run over by numbers that are not accurate or that are misle^- 
ing. We are not lookjp^ Tor mathematical precision. But we are looking for thor- 
oughly honest calcub'^Wons, Numbers by them.sc«lves should be not used to explain or 
to exeuse sex discrimination > 

First, the ()2 percent The figure is actually* fJlJ percent acc{)rding to June O'Neill - 
of the Urban Institute. So We have a wage gap of '\\ {X*rcent Why? Is the whole 
thing due to discriminatiwn'^^That is what both of Miss Oakar's bill say. Kven the- 
much quoted Census study, "American Women: Three Decades of Change" hedges 
by pointing to possible variables other than discrimination. 

When you see these numbers thrown around, we have to ask; how much of the 
gap is due to choice or to discrimination How much of the gap is due to differences 
in work experience, tenure on current job, training, unionization, ouality of school- 
ing, productivity*^ And how much is due to conditions of supply and demand? Small/ 
surveys try to control for the variables and to isolated discrimination. The Onsus 
Bureau does not have a definitive study. According to June O'NeiU, after controlling ' 



6 



ERIC 



-fur (111 tiTcnct's In lilctiriu' labor rn;iikrt 'ox [)cr ii'/icc. llirrr rcfn.iui^ .in uricx [)I.iinr(l 
^^ap ol / to i Some .<Iii(1m'^ r\[»hiiiHMl liiat ^.ip ^lit fta riu"t'> ni ij^ifn 

(ivf'.s The <aii ('nfu ludr at t}iis tinir |s tiiat rr^uiual \^aK<' ttiip i> ii iiToa>> 

lire of our iKfiorantc. ratiila than a riUMMirt' ot l)hitant (fiM r inunat ion Thcsr hrar 
m^^s should help to tloM' t [lilt i^Mor .ihrc t;ap 

Arc uoMirri K*'ttiiH; poorer as well as un(l<'rpai(l'.' Tht- tact is thai x^marn -^onic 
what irji^rrast'ii as .1 prrv<aita^;r of p<ior a<likU> o\rr tiiiu'. [)ut a <lrv liftniK p<-n-c«'Mta^;f 
ol alt v^otnrii wvxv |^<>r Hut \\ of woinrn arc ni>t p(toi . ,iv the C'li.in has allci^rd 
'I'lir poverty rate for women in was Pi ; eonipared t») tliat to? iMun \ylnih wav 

V \ In the p<)vert> rate for adult \^<)ine!L'WaN L!."; i -aid loi men Vtl'; 

Tfie widelv (juoted ( 'eUsUs ta[)le ir >enou>ly misleading hev iuisr it ^it^M^uiM's the 
nuitiher ol poor people m lemale headed hous;i ho|d>. not the ruiinhei' <^ pot>i women 

'June O'N'edl has stated that the poverty fa<e(i l)y female headed families 'does 
not seer!! t(; he t lie result a failure \\\ the l.i'not market ^\ Mi(fre likelf re.tleets 
eornplex soiaal prohUans related t o t he .disM >|nt ion^t>| ni<unaKe, ^ forujuni: tlie de- 
velopment of jol) skills prohlcnw n/lnfr'd W rhildhcai lUK .h\ woimai wiio are 
themselves eluldren " I)r O'Nedl sVuKests that we address teei^a^je tlnld l)ear- 
aTi<l needed chanK^'^ in .\hsrnt father supp<«rt 

if tin- luuubers are \yA eertan^^ the theory of con^parahle worth i.-- e\en less cer 
tain Foi in cumparahle worth we eorupar<' run ju^t nude teachers with female 
teaf4u*rs hut male truck dr i\er^ \vit[i f eiTiale Sei re^naes oh liic ha.sis of a --u})[)ose(! 
■■ol>)ect ive" evaluattitn The idea i> thai someone car^ c<m>f)are dissnmlar johs l)y re 
ducnm each joh to {>oint.s awareded for joh^skdls. educifffTm. r cspousihiht y . and work 
cnviroruuent Tlie pro[)lem is who is that "someone" ^^oiiu; t<» he.' 

Both* of Miss Oakar's hill would ha\e va? U)Us redend a^^eiu ies sent out on search 
'^and destr'(»v rmssnnis usin^,' the weap<)n of cornparahle worth Tfiforl unately. it is 
the least skilled amor.ui' women and oui econonVic s>stem that would ^et sh*)t Can 
\ou iinaKine Congress tr>in^ to deteiimne the c<)mpar'ahle worth ol wau^'s'* ("an you 
ima^^me an a^^enc> Iryinu to do it'* ('<)nKress cannot even dcternvine Us own wa^es 
proper-lv' Sfiould Clara Pellet i:et .<^(ll).n()0 a >ear ftir askui^. "Where's the heef'*'" I 
thuik she. worth every Cent However. Wendy's c<>mpetitu)n rniKht 'think otherwise 
Hut tliat.'s the kind of cjise we would ^^et involved m undi;^^ this lull. I am not the 
4)nly one wit4i this concjaai A (dack columnist for the Washin^^ton Post. William 
Ka.spherr>. says the c«>mpara[)le wtjith notion "seenis to uitroduce more problems 
thaiT It solves" 'column erulosedi 

( 'ortipai-ahb- worth is a theory that would replace the marketplace and collective 
barKiunm^' It would hurt the least skilled y-omen by drivmu their jobs over^seas Fl 
nally. It IS not a woriierrs issue H is as r*)Hlsive as the claim that woruen should 
stay in the honu^' It says women should stay where they are in their jobs, because 
(•(tnprtrable w<»rlh wij! raisy your wa^^es watlioql productivity, without nu'ril. with- 
out the inc(invenii*ru'e of supply and demand The concept is an affront to women s 
^ intelli^^ence arul caf)ahiliti(*s 

So to j})e [uibhc and the media I w*)uld ur^^e you lo hxjk closely at the numbers, to 
" be unalraul to (question the theory o| coiuparable worth Comparahh' w<atb is ptjsed 
as an us aK^inist tliem tfieory Hither you're jor women or you're against womerj 
Well. '^I'l^ '^n't the cue What we're auaitist is discrimination and so-calletj r-anie 
{Ji(»s^[p|>:il are diseriniirialory 

To the private scrlor. I would say, look out If we have more cases lik<' the Will 
mar x or other cases of hljUant and illegal harassmei}t then we're just inviting 
lIunKs hke comfjarable worth As Jane Hryant Ciumn i)Ut it. "unless employers start 
* Irealujj? ipay e(|uay) serious/y. ihey'r** K<J>"^ to a federal jud^^' as vice [)resi<]ciil 
of" personnel " ' . 

'AKaiu. Madam Chair, thank you for lioldm^ th(*se hearings' 

I'l^u/arliclf^s referred lo Ibliow:) 



ERIC 



Comparable Pay for Women 




JANE^RYANT QUINN 

I have misgivings over a line now being 
pursued in court lo raise the pay of 
milhons uf work>fvg women using a con- 
cept known as "coinparable worth." It's 
^oing io become the money issue of the 
I^gOs^ Its economic impact exceeding ihal 
of the labor union movement of the 1930s. 

For the past 20 years, it hasbctfn illegal to 
pay women less than mtn for doin^substait- 
tially the *iame job. But it has nol been 
co'nsidered illegal to establish lower pay' 
scales for fcinalc dorniiKitcd otcufStioni, 
like librarian, secretary ant^riuise in Wash- 
ington, slate^eniploycd warehouse workeri 
(inale) start out with S472 a month more 
than clcrk-typists {fein.ilc) Iry Wisconsin, 
state-t'inploycd bakCrs (male) earn SI 50 5 
nu>nth more thag cooks (fciT)ale) in Phila- 
delphia. 24 p^hcenl of oty-eniployed wom- 
en fall into theJ^^iiJ^^rr^cst pay grad«, but 
only 3 [KW^I^of the men. 

fmlnatlon: Ix)wcr female pay is part- 
ly fci^tc^i ti> the way many women work. 
They may quit their jobs for a wliile to raise 
children or deClme a higher job l^ccausc of 
the pressure of home resp<)nsibilitics. But 
after all the c^^^reclions have been made for 
differences in tenure and training between 
working inerj^id wornenrit slill turns out 
that W(Miicn,iin average, are paid less. Jfiat 
difference is the hard nut of (Jiscrimination. 

Krilci (he d(Kliinc of comparable worth. 
An evolving legal thev>r>- says tt\at Title VI^ 
of the Civil Rights Act goes beVOnd e^iial 
pay for cquaLwock it also requires equal 
pay for jobs iHat, although different from 
those held by men, call for a a)mparable 
amount of knowledge, -4kill. rffort and rc- 
sp<»n<lbility Most c(Hins have rejected ihat 
ihnlry Butm 1^^81 theU S Supreme Court 
veerned to open the d(H)r a ciack. and la:^ 
Orccinbcr federal Judge Jack H Tanner 
drove a ismn through it. 

He ordered the State of Washington to 
redress a discrtff>ancy that its own studies 
found: female employees were earning an 
average of 20 {x rcent less than«^nen doing 
cornpur;ible w(uk According tOa {H)int sys- 
tem for evaluatifigji)bs. certain clerk typists 
m Washington should be the equal of ware- 
house workers, and practical nurses the 
equal ol oltset press operators Judge Tan- 
ner held It no excuse that some nurses m 



WashingtcTti can be hired in theopenlfarket 
for less thari pressn>en. gardeners and driv- 
ers or that the slate has budget problems. 
Tlie time to remedy pay discrintinatiftn, he 
said, is "right now " He appointed a "mas- 
ter" to deterniine new pay scales for an 
estimated f 15,000 underpaid "women's" 
jobs (20 percent of (hem actually held by 
men). Tlie state, which will appeal the deci- 
sion, says that it would cost around S770 
million in back pay and fringe benefits ai>d 
add $130 million a year to the payrollQf " 
Tanner is upheld, most other public and 
private cmD|oyers could face similar costs, 

WTiile approving the end, I doubt the 
means Tlie Tanner approach assumes that 
personnel studies can satisfactorily com- 
pare (different kinds of jobs But \yhat hap- 
pens \v hen the studies disagree, a.s they jnevi- 
y^ibly will? What if nurses decide tha|. their 
job hai not been given sufficient "worrh"? If 
a sh()ni>gc of gardeners drives up theim)ay, 
how much more vwll comparable worVers 
have earn to a/oid the appearance of 
discri^ninalion? what about uiaJe-dominat- 
ed^bs that the stuii#cs say ,are also under- 
paid? Tliere aren't enough courts to handle 
such endless battles over relative pay. 

Other Options: ^f nc^t by law. how else can 
underpaid women win a decent wage? One 
'wSy is to ^luit practical nursing and Icam to 
operate an offset press Another way is to 
organize. Nurses in Denver lost their com- 
parable wo(lh case in court but won higher 
payby going out on strike Tlie International 
Union of F.lcctncal Workers has been win- " 
mug feminist bonuses for some of its women, 
riic American Federation of State, County 
.irid Municipal Fniplo>ccs, which brought 
the successful Washington lawsuit, has won 
pay equity adjustments thr(>ugh strikes andlf 
negotiations in Hennepin Cownty, Minn., 
a?id San Jose, Calif, Spokane, Wash.^ and 
Ix)s A ngeles, among other cities. 

Many women are wary of unions andW 
with reason; most unions never did niuch^ 
for thtm. But the same techniques that 
worked for ma/e blue-collar workers will 
work again. And case-by-case bargaining 
has the social advantage of taking each em- 
ployer's financial situation into consider- 
ation, whiclv 'fo labor negotiation can ig- 
nore today. But one way or another, pay 
equity is on its way Unless employers start 
treating it seriously, they're going to get a 
federal judg^i^^vic^ president of personnel. 



ERIC 



William Raspberry ' . 

Who Decides 'Equal Worth'? 



I'm nol one In >krr<un Uxi (juakly alxM-il k^*^- 
Ui^ ihe ^'overnimMil uit uur l)ai kij. (iovernnieiil 
intrrhTehre in pnvatj- riij^rprc^ Jyw acvurii 
plish^ii Hiij)ie ihrn^fs wurtli .mofnplj.Hbin^^: crtil- 
ui|i ^'.ntrv.yiud.i'Auii: r.nuij hiuI h<'Xii;iI discrmu- 
lijiion. !nifh in piu ki^nH,: ir^'bil/aron.^^rDlcclion 
i*t ttu*'pmirniiim*iit. just In ii.uih' a tt:w 

So It inn'l a rt'|]t xivt» tf^jMUni^* lo govtrn- 
DU'nt iruerh i'i nci' ih.a mr prublema wilh 
Ji.i' f>ilh,»! iit'vs lonrffK Hjiial pAv f<>r work 

C"inp,iralili' vaiiu*. Mv dnufjLs have lo lio 
with wfu'Jhrr. Diu^' \i'tir ^ci paxt the first 
Iv'^-i) (ii ti^r thiiij;. if\r KUiit'pt makes Ketnt"' 
whetfu^" It s TfiLHonahlu Ut su[)pt>8t' ifmt sonic- 
"iH* utu rank )«;t>H annrdnij^ (n llinr intrinsic 
wurfh and hiue^lhc >^(>vi'riiineMt ('nl"orte -lluil 
rankin^i t>y l('^;i3lntiiiK th(> a[)pr<^pi1ate pay 
HCau's 

[H.Hj[)le (ijiially for [H^rlomni^i the same 
work HLik«^ oiivioiw st'nse, }iJlfioii;,'h haven't 
_ ttlwHys (l«ir>e it. Ki;r niurh of oor histury, wunuMi 
WW jMiid less Lhiin men lor the 5iain(! joIm, I 
remeinU'r the rej<iit in{^ m my uwit U)yh()od home 
when my sthool-teai lier mother jjot a lurfly niLsO 
*LH a rt^ult of .1 new Mmssifipi law nuuidnliivj. 
tx}iuiliyi\tuin of pay for hLi' k and white li'jirhers. 

(t also m(<keM sense to remove, through k^jv- 
eniment fiat if ikhcsjvItv. tjii- harriers tluit \ct'p 
j>eti[>le out ol (ertawi fi(l(U nt finployment l)e- 



aiii3e of sych irrelevant factors ra<e m'\ 
In lx)th tlies<* awes, the uaJHiria'^s ls pl.jin, 
and the remn1> ohvioas. Ttie lujiairnesa la .d- 
MHJHt as elt-ar -thoiij;!) the ^)lutioh cleurly i^n't 
^ will) re;;ard to *aunfier problem, tke (act lluit 
tkiine j{jIjHj)ay Ic^ii Urayse t)ioir |)ractitu)nerN< 
are women rather thiin men. Are le.ichers iin<f 
nimM.'s pHjd K-Hs t)uin painters and trw-trminierH 
Ix^oiusp thrfir wij/'k w less'v.ihjable. or re<|uir(s 
It^s trammK. or only Uvaast* teai hers and nurvrfs^ 
are Q mure likely to U' wfjHien? 'I'o itsk the 
(^ue«tron LS to answer it 

*' StiU. I'm not eonvin'cwi of the Workabthtv of 
the approfich Liiken by Wa^sliin^jlon ytate-^ 
rjinkin^ jtSw on ,i ixant system und stittm/Jw^nud 
pay scales lor vastly dilterent jolw tJut rate tho 
i^mie'nujnlx'r of [Xjint.s; clerk lypujla aiid ware- 
house worken. lor exiunplej 

Tu Ket i)erson,il alxnit i^. I will concede that 
the society could U'tter sur\'ive the ftl)isenct' of 
newspaper colmiun.sts tlian the al)flence't>f gnr- . 
hii|;e colhrUirH. Djxis it follow llwt newspat)or 
culumnwts, whobe work la nut only lesij vital but 
also far more pleiLsant and payciiically reward- 
uiK, should Ih? paid lea^s than trash men, whowe 
work IS hard, hormg. unpleasant and indLsfjuta- 
bly nect^sary'' Or tfiat colomnisU Hhould ix) 
paid as much as *rV news .mchonj. whoso work 
la mure directly comp<u'ablc ' 



Sor 19 It particularly helpful to arj^ue tfiut 
Inure iiuuleifiic [)re|)aration is recpiired Um 
jou'rnalist.s tlian for :<anit^Ui|ni workers. Teacip 
er^ fiave U) g(j to school lur at lea^t as long ;ls 
professional afhletes l^ul it dt)t'sn't/iece3fiarily 
folluvv th.it a phvs'.cvl education teacher should 
be [laid as much iis his former cljissrnate who 
iHiw [ilrt)^ for tfie Hosl<iiWelti^^. 

I'Aen with adju.stmenls for skills and physical 
n.nk ^l^ w»*ll iis {fixation and (iTihlic iiNsl, (.he 
O'fiii^arableV.due ide<\ i.sn't |>ersiULMive. ^^n' 
'rijeL-.mann's work re<|uire:} that he p(»we^H 
physical streiiKth iind stamina, intelligence mid 
leaden^hif) ability, fiul does it really strike any- 
one iLs actionably unfair thiit 'rheisiiuum is ()aid 
more, and for a far slmrter work yc^ir, than the 
honchu of the loail rtHtcue unit, who inasl liiive 
comparable skills and wfiuie work also involvi-a 
savjiij,' liVcs'^ 

i linvo no arvniment witli the notion thai the 
govenuiuMit sliuuKl hi'lp bre^k down tlie Iwirrien 
tluit k(>ep women in t}ie lower- jwid employment 
gheltxiB, or t}uit the govern inent bis a role. In s<t- 
iiig to It tjuit they are fairly (jaid once tJjey're out. 

Hut the e(|ua|.-pay-f*or-wurk-of-cumparable- 
vahie nution geenis to me to intr<Kluce more 
problems tfian it solves. And who, by the way. 
will de( ide tlie value of the [icople wliose job it 
would l)t U) iisrtijjn value'^ 



00 



ERIC 



StATKNIKN T ok liKT'liKSKNTATIVK (IkHAI.DINK FkHKAHO 



Madam Chair, 1 am (1( h^^hU'd lo oltcr Ihis •icshmonv m Mipporl 'itJl l^ '')n!rj, the 
V<\v K(|inlv Aii of \ and II K l."):!!), (he Federal Kmplovccs' Fa^Mjuilv Aci of 
'7 ■ ■ - 

The issue ol pav e(|iiily fiolds ^real promise and cliallen^^e ior the workin^^ women 
ol oKir country It promises women lair and decent wa^^es based not on Iheii- sex hut* 
on the value ol their work But tlie charten^e of f)ny e(}uity is that it is a slow;, and 
exj)ensive pnucss to remedy And the very a^(ency chai>jed wilii securing; e(}uality in 
employmeni (or women and minoritiws the Iviual Kmpl(»yFnenl ()p[)ortunity C'om- 
mtssion has turned ^ d(.'af Car to woniea's appeals for ()ay ecpiity 

1 coMunend you. MsidanrClKur. I'or taking' a leadersliif) role on thi^ issue of ^M-eat 
importance lo wt)i|5i^'n. aiKl for turning 'this committee's attt'ntion to the lailur^ oi" 
this Adinnijst rat ion to seek and eiilor-ce remedies to this most pervasive lorni oT em- 
j)loyment discrimiiiatioii against woineii ^ 

\{ has Ix'en almost' two years since you and l.-alcnn; ^^i-tH ( 'on^^resswoman Pat 
SchVoeder lo chaired hearlIl^^s on f)a\ equity During; the c*ourse ol those hearin^^s we 
learned ol the p(*rsistance oljhe "wa^e ^af)" women's earnin^^s hoverin^^ at just (»() 
[MTient ol men's despite dc.'cades of social. le^Mslative and demographic chan^^e. We 
were told n*peatedlv ol' llie two widespread, yet oiten subtle, forms of emplovmenl 
bias at work to depress women's wa^'es: occui)ational se^ncgation and sex bas(>d 
wa^^e discrimination. 

•'We also heard c<)untless hours of expert testimony and personal stories that, de- 
spVe the pheiHjnienal increase in women's labor I'orce participjUion, women and 
cbildren'are the fastest ^^rowin^^ se^^ment Of our nation's [)overty [5o[)U latio'n The 
reason appears to be that most women's wa^(es are barely above the poverty level. It 
IS estimated that if women were paid the wa^f^ that similarly qualified men earn, 
we would cut in half the number t)i' i'amilies in poverty. Clearly, the issue of pay 
e(juily for womeii must receive our hi^diest priority il we are determined-ii) rt;yerse 
this trend 

• Since 1001). (he numbei of women in the labor force has more than doubled, with 
the labor force participation rate for women now at aii p^rcerit Women comprise \:\ 
percent of the total labor I'orce With recent figures showing that Hi] percent ol mar- 
ried cou[)h*s are duafeajner families, and Hi [)ercent of all families are maintained 
by w(/fnen. i1 is l)econiing increasingly clear that women ar(» bearing a major respon 
sibilily ior llie economic support of their families. Yet, whether they, are the sole 
sujjporl of themselves and their children or are contributing a portion ol* th^»'family 
income. ^lost women do not earn a living wage In \\)H2. the majority ol w()men 
wor king r)utsi(ie the home f)() percent earned less than $l(),()()0 a year. 

A Irfetime of low wages has im])lications for nearly every other issue relaling to 
wotnen's economic well-being Pensions, Social S<*curity and disability irtsurance are 
all directly tied to a persfm s income. The* ecjuity caused by the wa^» ga() during a 
woman's working years simply is trarislat(*d into economic insecurity in her retire- 
ment years 

Wh?a IS this Adininislralion doing to address this basic issue ol" ec onomic, e(|uily 
for Arnerican working women.* The last time we heard'from them, when Clarence 
Thomas, Chair of the KKOC testified at our li)H2 hearings, (^uite a contradictory im- 
firession was i)resented of the Administration's position on pay equity. On the one 
hand. Chairman Th()nias>tated that pay^(*(juity Was a to[) f)riority of the Equid Knv 
ploynient ( )p})ortuiiity (omniissioii. On the other hand, he suggested^ that one of 
KKOC's problems with pay i^piity cases is that they involve wides[)rcad, systemic 
{practices of wage discrimination, properly (l(*alt with in large, class-action suits. Mr. 
Thomas indicated that class-action cas(»s an* v(*ry exp<*iisive to process and would 
probably strain the resources of this C(jm mission. liesides, this Adminiytrat ion's 
leelings toward clas.s-act ion suites are well known. 

Mr Thomas is correct 'in recognizing that f)ay inequity. is not an isolated incident 
but is l4^ie result ol* a pattern of job segr(*gation and wage discrimination based on 
sex The firian(*ial resources of individual women have long been strained by this 
pervasive inequality and it is inappropriat(» to suggest that these women use their 
limited resources to bring actiorvs ()ne-by-(yie against their employers, The 
KKOC's reluctance to utili/e the most effective vehicle for adjudicating com[)laints 
of wage diHcrirninatior\ dernon.strat(»s their lack of commitment to achieving pay 
equity for women 

In n)Hl, the Suf)renie Court decision in (tuiithvr v. County of Wnafitn^ton, of)ened 
the door to Title VH claims of sex based wage discrimination even when the joUs are 
not substantially e(|ual. However, in th(* two-and-a-half years since (Uinthvr was 
handed down, the KKCX- has not filed a sin^e pay equity ca.s(» involving jobs which 



uiv nol llu- >;iint»»lM (at'l, tficre arc t'urrrntly over J.'iO pay ('(|Uily casc.^ prmliii^; 
l)rrt)rt' (fir KijUal Kinploynu'rit ()f)[)ortiniily ( 'niiini;s>|(Mi Who know^ liov^ inanv 
other women with waj^e (hsci umnat ion loniplaints an» out (ht'nv uiio liavc not 
l)r6ii|.(ht ihcir V liar^o to tlie htHaUse t[jr> kiio^^ it is a htiprlr.',.> rausr 

What lia?< Jia[»p(MU'(i to the pay e(|Uity ra^es helore tjie Iii tlic ^^ord.^ o( fuic 

KKOC ( 'oMiiiji.xsioner. the\ have heen ' vvarehou^od." intent ioiial l> >cl a^iile. jjt oI) 
ahl\ put in a pih- soniewlierc in a (iusty lihn^ l ahinel Ih' >anl thev are in this Jiohl 
})att<;fn wfnle th<- ( 'oininisstoners (ievelop the ivI'l(JJ"s poUr\ on pa> et^uity 

Sniiiethin^ IS ( learlv wron^ here \\ is now Apiil Tn>l. over t\\<j vears .since the 
(ittntlwt ileeiMon and a year rUid a hrdl sinee t'liainnan Thonw\> testdlnj that pa\ 
e«tuit> wa.s a top priority Wfiy then, after all this tune, is the exeu.se \)v\\\y\ oltered 
tliat no pay e(ttiit\ pohV\ has heen lorinulated * 

The I. let i.s that tlie ah'tradv fias a [)oh( > to ^^uide its invest i^at ion and hti 

t^aii'on of pay »M|iiitv cases jn l!ISl. when tho t'omnnssion was .st ill 'cont rol led hy 
('after afipointet'S. teniporary Kuidehni's were >issih ■(! t») direct, tlie in vest i^at ion of 
se\ l)ased wa^e dis( rinun.il ion eases 'l*he current ( *oiNinis>ion. nou with a niajtM ity 
apfioirUed hy IVesidenI Keaj^aii. has neKl<'t tt*<l t<' make the^;<' Knidf'iniv>> perinaii<'iat . 
hut \\A> extended t liein every !H) days 

What has happened is that the reK'^'Jial offices coi.tinue to itivesti^ate clauns of 
u a^;e discruinn/d ion. I)ut wlien the> send llieir flnduij'.s t(^ W'ashinK<<'n. theyjUst sit 
Tfiey sit hecause tho eurrent Conniussion is unwilling to ^iap|)le with the issue of 
pay <Mpnlv and oth«'r (Mjiiafity issues which .ue of fundamental importance to the 
working women of Ameri(*a 

lN»rtunately. this lack of leadcrshif). or even support, on the part <if'the IvKOC has 
not stopped the pav ('(tuity movement from K<>niK forward 'I'lianks to the coirunit 
men! of" indi vidual(wonn'n and supp(Mtive unions, major strides have heen made in ' 
rvmedym^ wa^t' <liscrinnnat ion through' negotiation, collective harj^aininj^, litigation^ 
;md jof) evaluation studies 

Just a few months a^o, women workers m Wa.-liiiiKtori State won a landmark pay 
e(]Uit> decisioi] hrouj^hl l)y theii union, AI'*St'MIv 'I'heir ernj)loyer the State of" 
Washiiit^Mon was found toJ^* m violation oj' Title due to its pervasive and in 
tentional practice of se^re'^Jatinj^ its workforce and su[)ressmK the wa^es of women 
workers This case was won with no help from the KKOC altfiouj^h AFSCMK had 
filed a formal complaint against the State of Washington with the K1'X)(\ Fed U[) 
with KKOf's failure to act on the complaint. AFSCMK weni ahead and filed a suit 
on its own in Federal District Court Novv. the a(iminist rat ion is ex[)ressin)4 o[)posi- 
tion !o the court's dec ision and is threateninj^ to intervene on l)ehalf^ of t he State in 
its appeal, just as it intervenecl on hehalf of drove City College in an atlem[)t to 
weaken the law providinj^ e(|ual educational op[)ort unity for women. 

This admuiisl rat ion says it does not helieve in the F(|ual Rights Amendment l)e- 
cause it prefers to remedy sex distTimiiu'Ction througli le^islatat ive and administi a 
tive actions We are still waitin^^ for a sign from the administration (hat it cares 
ahout the women of America The inaction of the KKOC on hehalf of pay e(|uity 
clearly shows this administration s lack ofCornrr^it merit to improving the status of 
woiitMi in the economy and in the workforce 

I think it is unfortunate that we in\>)n^re.ss must c(nUinually act to protect the 
hard fought j^airis women have made fr()hvlhe Reagan Administration s attempts; to 
reverse those ^ains However, if the A(ir^iir\st rat ion is un^illiiiK to accept its statu 
tory re(|uir (unent to enforce our nation'^s ci^^il rights laws, then we have no choice 
hut to [)rod them further Your two hills, Madam Chair, provide thi* necessary impe 
tus to ^et the hall rolhiiK <)n federal enforcement of pay e(juity for w/)men workers 
in hoth the puhlic and private sectors. 



PUKTAKW) StATKMKNT OF HoN. HaMII/FON FiKH. 'Jk. 

Madam Chair. I would Irke to express my appreciation to you and to the other 
Committee mc^inhers for holding hearings on two hilU of vital im[)ortance in elimi- 
nating sex hased wage discrimination Discrimination in compensation is clearly rile 
gfd These l)ills are im{)ortanl h(»cause th(»y would facilitate oversight of existing 
law. ^ 

On Septemher Hi, I AP'SCM K won a landninrk [)ay e(]uity lawsuit against the* 
state of Washington nis(Timinalion hy th(» stale of Washington wa.s found t<) he 
"pervasive, intentional and in violation of the law" 

Tlu» <'f(jf*ct of this decision has heen far reaching The com'epl of pay equity is no 
longer an untried legal opirrion It has hecome a new, effective way of heginning to 
address the disparate nature of differf^nt pay scales helw(»en women and nien. ray 



ERLC 



II 



V 



ERIC 



K(juM\ has hetdiiU' \hr tool !)> wliu li \Ur WiJKt' Kaf) Ix'tuccn rririi and women ran Uv 
tiarro\\C(l, and lioprlully oiN' day rloscd Today, there are over 17 tt^iJlioti wometi in 
the lahor lone. Kven \Mth e»i;ial pay and anti discritnniat ion statutes on the hooks, 
women lontnme lo^'sirn less, auprijxunat ely sixty cents ou tlie dollar, than u>en do 
tor pertornnn^ l)oth the same and i'om[)aral)le valued work 

(ine ol the prmie eaiises «)f the wa^t' K^'P seKrcKiv^ vsomeri m a narrow 

ranj-je ol low paym^ inhs The I'nited Sla(es l.al)or Department stafist ks sfiow t liat 
.'.-J'; Of all vsorkm^ women ht^Id johs m two of the twelve niajor orcupat lonal r;^te^o 
nes^ clencai and service johs OI J'JT joh (•ate^orles withm tliese tWelve major 
^^roiips, hail ot tlu' wttrkniK women in this rounlry fall into onl> I't) oa upations 

" I'he National Aiademy of Sneiu'es m a 1!)S1 stiidv deterrniiied tha't "the niore an 
(Vriipation is d»)minated hv*w»)men, the h'.s.s it [)ays" While llns in itself ts not a 
causi' and effect relationshi[). the report went on to say that " only a small part ()f 
the earnings dillereHcs helwcen men and women ran he ae(t)nntj'd for by Mivi 
enccs in education, lain r force experience, lahor force c(unmitmenl. or other luiinan 
iavit<d tactors Iii'Ik'VimI to eontnhiitr to prodiu t ivU y differences amon^ women" 

WtMiieii have heen and continue to he discriminated against in coiiip(Misalion , 
haseti on th.'ir srx Title Vll of \hv Civil .RikHIs Aet,.as welT^s Kxeculivi'^Order ^ 
llJUi. exfuessFv |)rohihit an »aiii)lovi'r from discnfiimat m^ ir> ">nipeiisat ion The Su 
prerne Court lias found nn the.(hinlhor decision' that this sex based wa^c (liscrinii | 
nation is ille^^al ^^v^'n il thi* jobs heiiiK coiii[)ared are eritirely different What is 
nfM'ded now is entorcement of the law\ and niechamsni^ for implementation ol en 
tori'emeiit 

H K b"»l»^>. the Federal I'aiiployee I'ay Kiiiiity Act of is one such niecbanism. 

It mandates the Diri'clor of Ol'M to identify and climniate discnminatory wa^e set 
tin^ practues It sets up ^^iiidelines Um OPM to follow in implementing this le^isla 
tion Many states liavr taken the init ialive^aiid liave developed iheir own plaiis lor 
'reinedMtui tins diM nmitiatioii Miiitu'sota is a casr in [)oint (Vrtamly the federal- 
}.'o\*'rmnenl should ilo no U-ss than taki* tlH-le^id and come into compliance witii the 
I'aw 

In coiouiutiori with this. 1 1 K oiH)^. the Pay r.quity Acl ol PJS-l, would reciuire 
p4'riodu' (it'taileil rejiorts to the Trf'sident and Congress [)y the MK(H\ (he I)e[)art 
ment o( i:id)or, the Department ol Muslice and Ol'M desiaibinK the actions taken lo 
enforcf the-ie federal anti dtscriminalion laws 

In the area ol civil rights, -we must l)e continually vigilant Althou^^h we can say 
lhal we liave iiiade ^^reat .'Strides in the last twenty years, there have been many 
.ireas in which we have hei-n remiss Obviously it ts not enough just to j)ass \r^\i^\-A 
|n>n. and assume that our witeiit is rlear Theiv should be no (luestion of the ^^rasity 
of oia omissions We must be viKilnnt to see that these laws are im[)lenieiiled and 
enforced This is not oiilv a <piestion ol justice, it is a qliestion of economic survival 
for women in our work force, and tlie families tlii'V support 

1'kkI'Ahki) Sta thmkn t ok Hon Haknky Khank 

Madam Chair, thank you for inviting tiii' to ti'stify at these hearings 1 commend 
you lor voiir loiiKjlaiidinK conmiit iiuait to [)ay e(|uity aiid for your efforts now and 
in the past to liriiiK tins issue to the forefront in Cori^^ress 

I.ast moiitli, the Subcounnittee on Manpower and Iloiisnu^ winch I chair, ludd 
oversi^^ht hearuiKs on the KKOC's enforri'tiient of sex bases wa^^e discrini mat ion 
laws As von yoiirscdl tesliln^l. Madam Chair, it lias been nearly throe years since 
llie Supreme Court allowed clinrKes of wa^e discrimination where the jobs beiii^^ 
coinf)are(l were dissimilar to be brought under the broad iinihrella of Title Vll ol the 
■ Civil RtKbts Act In the (hinthvr decision, the Court ofxuied tlie door to a new means 
of Cf)inbattiiiK wa^e fliseriminatioii. A ye:ir and a bilif a^o, wlien ynu and. Congress- 
women .Sihroeder and Kerraro ludd tlie first hearing nii pay e(|Uity. you discovered 
that the KKOC. the lead fedoral agency an employnient discrimination, had brou^^ht 
. no cases of sex based waK<' discrimination similar to the (iunfhvr claims j'md liad no 
policy fordealmg w illi diaries of sex based wa^e discrimination brouKbl under Tit le 
VII However, tlie KKOC assured your committees tliat enforcement of the law in 
this area was a to[) prionrv j imww. 

The purpose al' mv Subcomii it tee's heartiiKs was to determine wliyt iUv hhOC 
^was IloiiiK now to <'id*orce the lajw with regard to wa^e discriiiiinatU)ii. In addition to 
testinionv from vourscdf. Madam (^liair. and olb(*r Mf'iiihers of Con^^ress. the Sub 
cointntttee heard fnnn advocacy groups and lawyers representing women who were 
smmdiiiK maiiv thousands of dollars to l>riiiK mses of sexbased wa«e di.scriminat ion 
» into court Many of the.se cases w(»re origiiudly Hied with the KKOi' and lator in the 



0 



a)nrt.s l«vausc of thr lack ol aclioii oji the |)art ot the KKOC Tht-sr witnesses 
chaiK'ed that KKOC was m»t adtM^ualely erdorciiiK the law jnid had not made aiiv 
attempt to (leal with lliis issue 

The ('[;airmaii oi the KKOC admitted in llu* heanriK that until inv Sii[)cnrninit U»e 
he^an invehitiKatinK its eiilorcemeiit i-ecord. KKOC iiad.done liltl^' toVnlorct' llie law 
111 (/'///i/Zicr type cases, either hy hnriKinK cases to court or hv investiKatiiiK and at- 
tempt to resolve lh(^ many chaises -filed wit^h the Comimssion The Commission 
has now formed an internal work uroup to investiKate some of the numerous 
charges th^it havt» heen ^jatherinu dust in the tield and Washington olTices. and will 
he mscussniK them at the May meet Mm t^Hhe W\C)C Although oui liearin^^s result- 
ed in the KKOC lakin;j some action in this ansi. iV is certainly not enon^h. 
^ Your legislation is very timely m that it re(iuire.s KKOC aiid the other r(^sponsihle 
federal aKencie« to assess their eniorcemenl activities in the area of sex hased wa^e 
discrimination ar^d report ft) CoiiKress I^y how it is %}lear to everyone that this Ad- 
^ imgfstralion has tfie worst record of. eniorcemenl of employment discrimination 
laws" t>f any Administration in history Smc<^ no one in the Kxecutive I^ranch lias 
f)lace(i a hi^h priority on the elimination of sex hased wa^e discrimimU ion m th(» 
workplace, it is irnfjorlani that Con«^e^+s mak(^ clear, as'often as necessary, that we 
expect vi^'()r^)Uji enforcement of laws (ieaiin^^ withMiscrimination 

Again. 1 commend you lor holding these heartiiKs and lor {jermittiiiK' nu^ to t(»stify. 

^ Ms. Oakak.' At this time, we would like to^sk the Mernbers of 
Congress who have aske^d to testify to please come forward. Mr, 
Harnes, Ms; Kaptur, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Hoyer, if you would come 
forward. We would be happy to have your testimony. 

Wc^ are very grateful that you are able to be h(Mv. You are all 
champions in fairness issues. Mr. Barnes, we would like to start 
with -you. 

STATKMKNT OF HON. MI( HAKI. I), HARNKS. A l .S. 
RKFMtKSKNTATIVK IN ( ONCIKKSS FROM THK STATK OF MARY- 
LAND 

Mr. Baknks: Thank you very much, Madam Chai'r I very much 
appreciate the'opportunity to te.stify on behalf of establishing and 
^Pplyin^^ the principle of comparable worth in the Federal (Govern- 
ment. I also want to join with your colleagues on the committee in 
saluting you for your leadership, and your steadfast persistence in 
keepmg this matter at the forefront of public debate. 

This hearing is extremely important, (md it indicates your out- 
^ standing leadership. ^ 

Since as you indicated in your statement, the 'laws of our 

Nation have required employers including the Federal Govern- 
ment, to provide equal pay for equal work for all employees. We 
have^ been fighting this battle for 20 years now, and we have had 
some modloum of success, but we have yet to win a final and con- 
clusive victory. 

The matter of paying women the same pay as men when they 
perform work .that is of <:on\parable value tests our Nation's will- 
ingness to finish the task of providing real economic justice to 
American women. 

Kstablishing and enforcing such a standard of justice is not 
merely the right thing to do from the standpoint of the Nation's 
economijc future and our ability to realize the full potential of all 
Americah workers, but it is also,U would argjie, the most reasona- 
ble thing to do. 

That is why I share the Chair s view that .it is deplorable that 
the current administration has lamely come up here to Congress 
and literally thrown ujj its hands, because it says th^t it cannot ' 



er|c 



1/ 



find a roasaonabic standard ii[)()n which to establish c()rn[)arable 
worth. 

^Thc cas(» ol" AFS(\\IK v. the St(iti> of Washington clearly dcnioii- 
stratc's that theiv arc workable staiuiards in the real world which 
can b(» utili/ed to achieve^ economic ju^itice. This administration 
nevertlieless has turned a blind ey(» to what 'Tvrrrsi^-^'orn[)lisbe(i in 
that case Ibr the sini[)le reason, in niy view, that it believes that 
wage discrimination is prolltable. \ 

Discrimination at. the bottoni ol" tlu» wage/scale de[xresses the 
(Mitire pi\y scale. I sus[)ect thai there ar(* many in tfie administra- 
tion who think that that is a good thing. 

The courts, indeed, have be(;n s[)|it orV tlu» issue ol %vhether job 
evaluationhi can be based on labor market factors iy a nondiscrim- 
inatory mar/ier. The court iiv the Washington State ca^Ht* had the 
courage, though, to recognize that the seeds of discrimination are 
inherent in our current bibor mar'kets. ^ 



If rt is possible to c(ym[)are jobs withlut ^<irallel elements a 
point rating system or by other mean^ then in my very strong 
vi(.Av, men and women doing jobs ol" comparable worth should** be 
paid equally. 

As chairman of the Federal (iovernnuMit S(»rvice Task Force here 
in the Congress, I am as you know. Madam Chair, very deeply com- 
mitted to maintaining the quality of our Federal Service* It has 
been an honor to work with you on so many issues. 

I have no doubt that establishing a stand^ikiof comparable 
worth I'or the Federal (lovernment will markedlyfmiprove the qual- 
ity of the Federal Service that the American people receive from 
the PVd(^ral (Jovernment, > 

And let me just quickly list several reasons. I think, first, that it 
will create greater* opportunity for advancement in the Federal 
Service to many federally employed women who have been pigeon- 
holed in low paying dead end jobs. 

Second, one of the most wasteful features of the current Federal 
Service is the sad fact that personal development is not emphasized 
and encouraged. ^Eliminating discriminatory pay practices would 
remove a major temptation to achieve short-term savings at the ex- 
pense ol sound management practice. 

And, third, RIF's, downgradings, reorganizations, and other 
forms of staff upheaval in recent years have further narrowed op- 
portunitites for vtomen for advancement in Federal Service. Taking 
affirmative steps to break the stranglehold of discrimination on the 
pay side of the equation will f)rovide an important boost to the 
morale, not only of women in Federal Service, but of men as well. 

In short, comparable worth will give us a stronger Federal Serv- 
ice. 

Two, Federal agencies, as you know, the GAO, the (ieneral Ac- 
counting Office, and OHM, the Office of Personnel Management, 
have already begun to take some important first steps toward Fed- 
eral pay comparability. 

They have begun to develop a point-factor analysis system for 
evaluating jobs. OPM's interest', 1 fear, .stems mainly from a desire 
to review existing employee classifications. 0PM believes most Fed- 
eral jobs are overgraded, and its employees are overpaid. And what 




O - 84 - 2 " 




they arc really .aftiM*, I think, in^rvot cornfulrfiihle worth or improve- 
ment in the situation, hut really finding ways to cut pay. 

Jn my view, clas.siricat ion probU^rns are ?i dirJPt result of the (lov- 
ernment s inability to ke^ep Federal pay scales in line vvith private 
sector pay. Majia^^ers seekin^^ Jo' Vetain . top employees have en^i- 
lered bett,er .pay for • their peopfe through, the ckussil'icat ion 
?uem. We should be parlicularly C?u'elViU*as Fni sure tlie Chair 
will agree, to develop ai\ approfich to th^ issue of comparable worth 
that fully accomodates an upward rathvr tha4i a downward adjust- 
ment towar<l pay [)arity. - * ' 

' I W'Ould strongly ur^^e. ther•elo^(^ that save pay provisions become 
incorp)r'atc^(l in any approach that. th(* cortinnttee reconuncnds? 

According to the President's pay aK^'nt.s, as you knaw, Federal 
enr])loyees are already 1^1. o percent behind pr*iva4e se.ctor f)ay. V 
tlunk it would he interesting if the committee is able to develop th(\ 
data to know just how much further federally employed women laK 
behind tlie average private sector pay for comparable work. 

Our experience with Federal, non-sex-based pay comparability 
adjustments suggest that we must also take steps to insure that 
Congress does, not succumb to the popular tactic of bendin^^ compa- 
rability to meet the r-ecjuirements of future exercises in austeritv. 

I would h()p(» that in tacklifiK th(» thorny issue of job comparabil- 
ity we could also discover* techriicjues that* would help us bring Fed- 
eral [)ay U[) to private standar'djj 

The statistical t()(*)ls developed in the Washington State case may* 
have great pr'f)mise in that regard. And I would commend them to 
th(» committee. 

I sincerely hope that the admimst rat ion would drop its plan to 
int(M'vene in tllftt case, because its r'ecor'd on behajf of both women 
and Fc(l(M'al employees has been absolutely abysmal. ^Hot h groups 
ar-e ex[)ect(»(l to excell in their perforriiance in the labor' for'ce, but 
neither is given encouragement or* assistance. The legislation 
befor'e this committee addresses both of those f)roblems at once, 
and I certainly supj)ort it. 

It is time we stopped pa>ing women ^n.f)!) for ever*y dollar we pay' 
tnen in the workforce. And, similarly. I would suggest to the com- 
mittee, it is time we st^opped paying Feder*al employees $0.7!) for 
ever'y dollar that a private employee makes. It is r'eally time for all 
Amer icar^H^ to receive a dollar'*s pay for a dollar's work. 

And. again. Madam Chair, I really want to commend you for 
holding tht^^se hc^arings, and to offer my assistance in any way that 
1 can pr'ovide it to you and t() your committee to help push- this leg- 
islation. It is terribly important; it is long ()V(M*du(^ and your lead-* 
ership is cr'uc*ial 

xMs. Oakak, Thank you very much. ( ongr(^ssmarl. And, again, I 
want to thank you l"or the work that you have done. 

Another cliampion lor fairness in this Congress is our good- 
friend Congr-esswoman Mikulski. Barbara. I want to* thank you 
very muclj^pfor takinu/fhe time to b(^ h(M'e. Thank you again for 
your leader'ship in th/s juid many other issues. 



statf: m i:n r of m ( )n . uxn \i \ h\ a. m i k i • ls k i , a 

RKPKKS1:NTATI\ K in ( ONdRKSS 1 I{()M THK STATK OF MAKV- 
LAM) 

^Ms. MiKi KsKi. Thank you^ Madam diair I am ha[)py to be \wn\ 
I ask Linanirfious i:ons(*nl to rt'vist' and cxtCTul niy ruuTiarks. 

It is'*a d(dii;li( to be with yoif on this in terms of the leadershif), 
both you and the ^'^ntlehidy IVoni Colorado/ Mrs. Schroeder, have 
provided in givin^^ us a iVaniework lor this important issue. 

A lew>ve(,'ks a^o I had the wonderful opportunity to be in I^hila- 
delpluLi to visit the ln(le[)en(lence HaH^o debate with, Jerry Ford 
and ortu'rs the issue of the *(\)nstitutio!i and, War PoWers Act. 

While we were debat in^,^ J he C'onstitution. and I lookKnl aroun^ at 
all ^ hose, pictures of Fouru^in'^^ "Fathc^rs, I w()ndcred what it would 
have been lik(^ to me(*t a founding niother:. 

Here today listening' to your opening statementT and watch you 
(^hair this, I feed that we have met a founding' mother. What this 
legislation 'does is continue the debate that be^^an when we talked 
about the Bill of Hi^'hts,^he (Constitution of the United States, and 
th(^ Dechiration of Independence. For in our. IbundiuK' 'documcuUs 
w(» said, "All men were created equal/' Hut w^omen were not in- 
cluded. 

And even though Abi^^ail Adams chastised John -and said, **Ke- 
member' the ladies, for if you lio not, we will ler*rnent oui' own revo- 
lution/* they chose to i^^nore us. Now, I see that the revolution con- 
tinues in this le^'islation. 

We fou^Mit for our equal vi^his in the ec]ual r-i^'hts amendment. 
Havin^^ lost that battle, we are now pursuing' it one law at a time. 
And your pay e(|uity legislation is an im[)ortant step. 
. Pay equity simply [)ut, is a policy which calls for coi^recting the 
practice of paying women less than men for work that requires 
com|)arable skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions. 

Pay equity is a method ol closing the wage gap between men and 
women. 

And what essentially pay'equity would do, is put fundamental 
fairness in our law books and in our -check books. And we salute 
you tor* that. 

However, our [)U!*suit Ibr something so simply |)ut has not been 
easy to put into place. 

Despite^ the passage of the Equal Pay Act of VMhi and the ('ivil 
Rights Act of 1!)()4, women still only earn (iO cents to that dollar 
that men earn. Two out of every three women are in poverty. 

The insidious persistence of this gap reflects, in large part, the 
()ccu[)^tionaJ segregation— some would say the ghettoization— of 
women into a narrow s[)ectrum of low-paying jobs. 

In li)H!i. about HO percent of >vorking wome^ were in low-paying, 
low-status, deadend jobs in service, retail, factories. These tradition- 
al "pink collar" jobs constituted only 20 out of the over* 400 occupa- 
tions listed by the Census Hu!'(»au. 

Right now many State and local gov(n*nments have tried to re- 
spond to this issue. My own State has passed a resolution affirming 
the. policy of comparable {)ay for comparable value, -but resolutions 
do not mean anything. It is the laws that do it. 




And it in our Icelin^ that if the Federal (Jovernnieiit cannot take 
the leadershi[)» how then can we challen^^' the private .sector. 

Now, Madam Chair and nienib(*i*s of the ccyuniittiH', you are 
fjoinf; to hear a lot of ()[)p()siti()n to this l)ill. The ()[)[)c)nents are 
j^oin^ to say a lot ol'thin^^s. The ()[)p()nents ai*e ^oin^ to ar^^ue that 
it is impossible to compare jobs. Ikit the dilTg^i'ences can be cjuanti- 
lled accor-din^ to tiainin^. experience. knowleJ^e, decisionmaking. 
Objective standards of these are as [)art of any r(»s[)()nsil)le job obli- 
gation. Therefore, it is only reasonable that th(\v be used to com- 
pare and contrast jobs in order to achieve a balanccni and just [)ay 
scale. A 

()[)p()nents will ar^aie that the law of supply and demand will de- 
ter^mine salaries-- kind of su[)[)ly-side economics in the mai'ket- 
place. Yet, the critical shortage of nu!\ses has not resulted in lair 
com[)ensatic)n for their services. For exam[)le, in 1!)S1, a full-time 
RN. earned an avera^^e of ^^SM pvr week. This is less than a ticket 
a^ent. an electrician, a diaftei", ()ccu[)ati()ns which are held [)re- 
dominately by men. Yet their* !*es])()nsibilities ixhd education would 
warrant com[)arable pay. ] 

Also, opponents ar^^ue that the policy of [)ay ecuiity caiinot be im- 
plemented bect^use it just cost too much. WerMjur answer to that 
is that it cost a lot to be a woman in our society. By the mere-fact 
of earning less, we will then ^^et less in our pensions; and you and I 
know that in fair insurance, insurance has n^t hvvn fair, that we 
pay more and ^vi less. ^ 

liut when they say it will cost too much, our* opponents must 
know that cost is no excuse for' discrimination. 

In the past. ()[)ponents fought against child labor' laws because 
they said it would cost too much to take i)-year*-olds out of sweat- 
shops. 

()p[)onehts fought a^^ainst the minimum waK^v ()[)[)onents fou^dlt 
against health and safety laws because they said it was too expen- 
sive. And we say, that's no reason. 

It is time to acknowledge that pay equity is a fundamental civil 
rights issue. It is time that sex-based waj^e discr*imination must be 
actively outlawed, just like race-based wage discrimination. 

The jobs performed by women are vital to the support and the 
development of our' society. 

Therefore, I urm^ my colleagues to support these measures which 
establish the poli/y of pay equity and begin to provide us with thdt. 

And I am very pleased that shortly you will hear from two very 
important wom^n on this issue: Joan Mondale who will be speak- 
ing on this issu^ and will be introducing a folk hero to us, (xlennis 
Ter Wisscha of the famous Will mar Eight, the brave women who 
made history on pay equity. 

I thank you very much and look forward to working. with you on 
this legislation. 

Ms, Oakak. Thank you very much, Barbara. 

Our next witness iij^C'ongresswon^an Kaptu?^ As a member of the 
Ohio delegation, I was always a little bit lonely until Marcy came. 
She is the second woman from Ohio, and she is a leader in issues 
that relate not only to women, but to the business community and 
others. 



21 



I am very pvoud of you. Marcy, and want to thank you very 
much Ibr bcMn^ heri^ today. 

STATIvMKNT OF HON. .MAIU'VJ\APTl R, A VkIM^KSKM ATI VK IN 
('OXiRKSS Vm^TllK STATK OF OIMO 

Ms. Kapti-k. Thank you. Madam" C'haii'woman and monih(^rs of 
the comrnitte'e. I think that I want, as m>' colloa^nios have, to lhank 
you for your continuin^^ sc^nsilivc and [)i'actical U*ad(M\shi[) in this 
important issuo of pay (Hjuity. \- 

And. Madam Chair woman, I \lould like to say that, it is int(M*est- * 
in^ that^u and I roprcvsi^nt MT\' U) [)6rront oi'thc women in Con- 
gress \^/\n^ just from one vStat(s and there iwv so few' of us! 1 think . 
that was on(^ of th(^ thin^^s that sur[)rised me when 1 ^M)t hvvi\ 

I would lik(* to ex[)r(^ss rfiy stron^^ su[)por't for' the two hills b(»for'(» 
us. In [)rx»[)ar*inK for today's r-(Mnarks I went l)ack to th(^ oviM'si^ht 
hearings that were r'evently he^ld on th(^ issue of (Hjual pay Ibr work 
of comparable value. And hfound a (juote from Mar'^^ar*et Meade 
that I would tik(^ to ruM-ead into the rvcord in which she says as a 
teacher* to the world. r*(^ally, 

ThiTr arc villa^^rs in wjnch men fish and women vsra\i\ and in which. women llsh 
and men wravc lint m (Mth(»i tvfx' of vilhiK^'. the work doru- hy tfio men is valued 
higher than thr work (ion('.J)\ ihf women 

An(], I think that is why we ar*e h(M*(^ today. 

The women hav(^ mad(^ trc^nuMidous st riders in tUe [)ast 20 year*s 
in th(Mr partici[)atton in the^ W7)r*k Ibrce. It is iricrn^nsin^dy clear that 
[)ar*tici[)ation is not (Miou^h Ibr women to assunu^ tluMr rightful po- 
sition as (H^ual par*tn(M*s in th(^ futur-eof this country. I think that 
then^ iK [)l(Mity of room Ibr* impr*ovenierit, even in this body, in this 
Hous(^ itself, where thi^re are only 22 women of 4)^0 M(*mbers of the 
Housev 

Furth(*r, work F)ar*tici[)ation do(\s not necessarily insure (^conomic 
pros[)erity for women worker's. The issue extends beyOhd having f 
jobs to the nature of the jobs themselves and the compensation re- 
ceiv(»d. 

llvrv in the Hou.se as Members we are on an eciual footing- But 
figures are well known on the double standards that affect ad- 
vancement for women on support staffs. 

Upholding the principle of e^al pay Ibr (*qual wor*k is critical to 
all women in the work force and it is pr*oper that we begin h(»re. In 
particular, women do not receive equitabU* compensation in two 
types of case5. 

F'irst, and most blatantly, women performing the same work as 
men do not always receive the same CQmpensation. 

Second, women are often underpaid beamse the occupations they 
work in are underpaid, relative to other occupations. This wage dif- 
ferentiiil is not based in differences in productivity. 

As ci district court in Washington found last year, and others 
have nientioned, female State employees were paid less than men 
even though their jobs required similar skill, effort; r*esponsibility, 
and working conditions. 

The net result is a substantial wage differential. Women's wages 
average about ()2 percent of wages for nien. 'And serious problems 



accompany these lower wages. All of us who serve in this Hou^e 
know the people that walk into our offices on a daily basis. 

The 4rend toward the feminization of poverty includes many 
wom^n who work full time ^md, still, they and their families 
- remain poor. 

Both IIR. 4599 and H.R. 5092 would take significant steps 
toward solving the problem of waj^e and equity, H.R, 4599, the Fed- 
♦eral Employee Pay Equity Act ofi 19H4, would prompt the Federal 
Government to take the lead by establishing equitable wages for its 
own employees. 

Before the (Jovernment demands more of private sector compa- 
nies, it is appropriate that it uphold the principle of pay equity in 
its own companies, including this House, 

The second* bill, the Pay Klquity Airt of 19S4, requires selected 
Federal agencies to report actions taken to enforce Federal laws 
prohibiting pay discrimination on the basis of jiot only sex, but also 
on the basis of race, religion, or nationul origin. 

As has been made clear in the past few years, the level of en- 
forcement of Federal laws depends on the administration in office. 

Pay equity should not be subject to the whim of the pojitics of 
enforcement Nqfficials. It is a principle that should be upheld at all 
times, and a reporting procedure would help eliminate lax enforce- 
ment, ' ^ 

I commend the Chair for her leadership in this area, 1 hope Con-, 
gress will move quickly to pass these important bills that promote' 
economic progress and equity for women. And it has beep a pleas- 
ure to appear before you this morning. 

Ms. Oakar, Thank you, Congresswoman Kaptur, 

Now I would like to recognize one of the distinguished minority 
leaders of the full committee. 

Mr. (lilman, would you like to make a statement at this time? 

Mr. Oilman, Not at this time. 
,^^s, Oakar, Thank you very much for being here. 

I would like to ask C*6ngressman Hoyer if he would like to 
present a statement for the record. Congressman Hoyer, of course, 
is another fine leader in this area. We are very happy that you 
could come for this hearing. 

STATKMKNT OF HON. STENY H. HOYER, A l .S, REPRESENTATIVE 
IN ( ()N(;RKSS from the state of MARYLAND 

Mr. Hoyer. Thank you very much. Madam Chair. I just turned 
toUhe next First Lady, cind said to her that you will note that 
three out of four at the table are from Maryland. 

I am very pleased to be here to join you today, Madam Chair. I 
am especially pleased, Having had the proud distinction and honor 
of being a member- of ypur^subcommittee, which you have chaired 
so well over the years that I have been jn Congress. , 

In the p^st SO years, as you know, (JO percent of the people newly 
entering the la^jor force in this country have been women. It is an- 
ticipated that in each year of the next decade, 1 million additional 
women \vill join them. More than half are women with children * 
under 18. 




1!) 

Theso official statistics rellect the notion that the so-called flood 
of women into the marketplace is a relatively recent phenomA^na. 
The^.truth of thee matter, however, is that womi^n have always 
worked. They just have not always beensxecoKni/.ed and fairly comN 
^ pensated lor their labor. . n 

Ay Jar back as ISTO. close to percent of the household*^ in Bal- 
timore, Md.. which Barbara Mikulski represents so well, relied in 
. some way in female-K^uierated income. By 1 !)()(). that number had 
risen to percent. While the number of women in the compensa- 
ble labor (i)rce has almost doubled in t,he past 4-1 years, the reason 
for tl]^s entry has remained rX^latively the same— economic necessi- 
ty^ ^ , . 

Despite Ww raf)id Kn)wth of wonum in the labor force, they still 
remain concimtrated in certain industries and' occu[)ations-~thi^ 
has been brouKht out at almost all of the hearings that you have 
held. Madam Chair— and they have been earmng -substantially less 
than their male counterparts, the rationale and reason for these 
heiirin^s and this legislation. 
V Despite the rapid growth of women in the labor force, as I said, 
^ the majority of women, working women, fill only 20 percent of the 
441 occupations listed in the census' occupational classification 
system, SO percent in four job fields; ('lerical work, service indus- 
tries, retail sales, and factories and plant'^. 

Of the 10 lowest paid occupations, (i or !)0 percent are filled by 
women; HI percent of our health aides are women. So percent are 
nurse's aides, (i!^ percent are cooks, and li^ percent arc foreign la- 
borers. 

Today the median wage for full-time women workers is $12,172. 
For full-time men, that figure is $2(),(iS2. Using these statistics, it 
takes women !) days to gross what men gross in o days. And the 
Fedet^al Government. Madam ('hair, is no exception, where the av^ 
erage salary for men is $:](),r)r):], and for women it is $15,579, little 
more than half 

I know that I need not go any further with these statistics. You 
know them well, clearly better than most of us in this room. But 
they are staggering. , ^ 

Womi^n are not marginal workers, and can no loeger be regarded 
as a limitless pool of cheap labor Occupational segregation is ex- 
treme and it is persistent. Within the Federal Goveriiment, there is 
a statistically significant inverse correlation betVeen sex andj 
salary in the general schedule and equivalent grade. 

But it is* not only the Federal Government that shows this segre- 
gation. We need go no further than' to make a cursory examination 
of the crisis in this country's educational system. The teachers of 
this country have been predominantly women, and as such our 
educators have historically been underpaid. 

Despite the fact that we entrust the intellectual instruction of 
our children to them, despite the requisite skills demanding re- 
sponsibilities and extensive training thqt we demand of our educa- 
tors, and because it is an occupation historically filled by women, 
teaching has become a second-class job, .and one vastly underval- 
ued. 

We are now being forced to see the Jong-range effects of this oc- 
cupational segregation, as our most qualified and educated women 



look to other more highly paid fields ol* endeavor. This phenofne- 
non unfortunately and tragically is not uniuue to education.^ 

More and more women are rapidly entering areas previously 
dominated by men — law, medicine, [)Qlitics. space exf)lorati()in,?engi- 
neering— where they can be more fairly and eciuitably compensat- 
ed. It, of course, is approprijj^tF that thej/ look to those f ields. 

But it has had a significant, effect, and has dramatized the under- 
yvaluing of critical services for clearly comparable worth. ^ 

Sex discrimination is costly in the long vun. What we see hap- 
jx^ning is that jobs traditionally filled by women, jobs undervalued 
.precisely for that sole reason, will become harder and harder toJlU ' 
with quality people, as ouV top-notch women seek careers that are 
more financially rewarding. 

In the lajidmark school desegregation case, Brown vs. Board of 
Education, a unanimous Court stated that segregation and equality 
cannot coexist. This applies equally to occupational segregation 
which has invariably led to wage discrimination, which brings me 
to the real issue that we are confronting today, sex discrimination. 

It is invidious and devastating, and it* is pervasive throughout' 
our society. We at the Federal- level have an opportunity to do 
something about this discrimination, and not only by adopting 
needed legislation which this committee is considering. 

We must begin as the Chair has with our ^Federal system. We 
must look at the Federal classification system, and make a positiSn 
to position comparison of cross-classification group lines. The Fed- 
eral Government should be a model for others to foll|t5W. Thfs is 
true as well for our State and county governments. 

Putting an end to exploitation clearly will not be* without its 
costs. Pay equity is a difficult issue. We are confronted with an ad- 
ministration intent on diluting the scope and strength of existing 
civil rights liiws, and one that has steadily retreated from enforce-/ 
ment of those laws. 

But obstacles must not and cannot be a consideration in promt^t-, 
ing and enforcing civil rights. Madam Chair, by assuming the lead- 
ership role in promoting pa3<;^equity and by vigorously pursuing the 
inequities resulting from discrimination^ in our society, you -are 
proving that the barriers will be and must be overtaken, the course 
made smooth and less difficult by your efforts. 

I am certain that with your leadership and commitment, and the 
leadership and commitment of^all here today, that we will succeed. 
The bottom line on the' issue of equal pa^ipfor comparable work is 
nothing more and nothing less than the issue of equal rights for 
women, and indeed equal rights for all people. 

Thank you very much. Madam Chair, for this opportunity to 
appear before you on this importantMssue. 

Ms. Oakar. Thank you very much. Congressman. The Chair 
would like to thank alJU#f her colleagues for coming today. 

As I mentioned, we asked another candidate to be present and he 
was not' able to make it. But we want to make it clear that we did 
invite the President to be here as well. 

' I want to thank Mrs. Jacqueline Jackson for being here today. I 
know th^it you join us today to talk about the important issue of 
pay equity for women, as you work — as well as Mrs. Mondale— tire- 



2 J 



lessly to enter the most exclusive f'emale-dornii-w4ted^ccupatioh of 
them all, the First Lady. ^-^^ 

And I should add that we do hope scTmeday to make that job cate- 
gory one that includes men as well. I/am deli^^hted by your pc^si^n- 
u\ concern^ and commitment to thiA issue. Our Nation's history 
sparkles with examples of First Lad'ie.^ such as Kleanor KooKevelt, 
who have been activists in the White House, conscious of the nv.vd ; 
for wononiic justice, the arts, 'humanities, and most im{)ortantlv, 
fairnciss and decency for all Americans.^ 

Mrs. Jackson, the area of civil ri^^hts is certainl^^l;) strari^^er to. 
you. But I wanted to mention how ^'niteful thtvCjpair is for yo'ur 
activities. You have been actively involved jn piAiotin^^ iM^uiilitv 
for all Americans since you attended hi^^h school^i Virginia. You' 
have a de^'ree in psychology . and' sociology giving you an under- 
standing of {)ay (Hjuality lor women. I am certain that ydur testimo- 
ny will highlight a side of the working woman's plight that is very 
.oft(*n ignored. 

We know that yoy hav(» a ce^^tain time r(\stricti()n; and I am 
going to ask my colleagues to resf)ect that. We would like to have 
you pt-esent your statement in any manner that is most comforta- 
ble for you. Thank you very much for being here. 

ST.m|\lKNT ()F JA('QrKLJNK JACKS()N 

Ms. Jackson. Thank you. First, I must apologize because I had 
intended to be available for (luestions. But due to a death in my 
family, I must leave shortly. afterward. 

Nevertheless. Madam Chairperson and members of the Subcom- 
mittee on (\)mpensati()n and Employee BeneTits, I am Jacqueline 
Jackson, and I welcome this opportunity to appear today on behalf 
of my husband's campaign. 

One of the 'most vital and key messages of my husband's cam- 
paign for the Presidency is that the rights.of all o'f the people stand 
or fall together. I open my comments this morning with one impor- 
tant illustration of our continuing and urge>it need to change the 
inequitable condit ions that women face. 

It is the Justice Department s recent and tejnporary successful 
attempt to narrow the scope of enforcement of title 9 which pro- 
tects- American women from sex discrimination in education. The 4> 
Justice Department went after the very language in title 9 which 
would do maximum damage to all of the other lai|s protecting 
groufxs against race, handicap, and age discrimination .as well as 
sex discrimination. 

My husband has endorsed the civil rights clarification bill to be" 
announced this week, that if passed will end the damage wrought 
by. the present administration in the (irove City case. 

When I learned that you were holding hearings on pay equity, 
the words came to mind again of a great woman who was a fighter 
for civil rights and who led th^^ 19.(54 fight for equality in the Demo- 
cratic Party. I am speaking of Fanny Lou Haymer, who spoke the 
truth and spoke it from her heart. 

She said, am sick and tired of just bei^jg sick and tired." To 
sum up w^hat Ms. Haymer said about her feelings, she was refer- 



s. 



22 

ring to issues constantly bein^^ discussed rlither^ tlian boin^^ re- 
solved, 

'l am here today to speak about dollar's and ^ecjuality in the spirit 
of Fanny Lou Haymii^\ Let us cease the discussion ol' this inequal- 
ity, and let us hO^\n to resolve this issue immediately. 

My husbiyid and I have devoted our lives to the I'ight Ibr'justice, 
e(|jjality, and a peaceful world. As a daughter of sharecroppers, I 
am familiar with the sight of men and women working side by Hide 
in the fields. I have from my childhood days in Florida been associ- 
ated with life's beauty, pain, hopes, dreams, 'and struggle' I know 
the history of people in poverly, people who are trying des[)erately 
to maintain a household. My authority for s[)eaking here today is 
rooted in my womanhood. And- the history of the people who have 
always worked and received little or no pay, 

• I am the mother of five children, I know intimately the joy and 
anger, anguish of watching one's childrvn grow with the ceiling to 
their aspirations and no Hoors to their des[)air. I am drenched with 
th(^ knowk'dge of the suffering of people: Men, women, ajid chiL 
dren. 

We have struggled for our dignity from the first day that we ar- 
rived on these shores as America's free labor force. 

1 am aware of this historic fact that women of color in Americcl* 
have experienced the tri[)le burden of working in Servitude, work- 
ing in the family, and workin^n the work force. >^ 

I am painfully conscious of the fact that w()men,>rfive beer^ perse- 
vering so long for dignity. Wheni women must struggle in this coun- 
try, the.children suffer. A nanon's greatness can be measured by 
how it treats its woni^ji. All of its women regardless of their diver- 
sity, i 

The character of a nation is measured by the attention given to 
the suffering of the young. 

Our struggle for dignity has taken place on the farms, in the 
homes; in the streets, and in the legislature. }ilaci<s and Hispanic 
women have shouldered disproportionally the burden of menial 
jobs in this society with the accompanying benefits of low pciy and 
long hours. 

These women often had to work just to keep their families intact. 
More families headed by women raising young chilcO'en are experi- 
encing a steady decline in thcMr economic status. 

This, combined with race discrimination an^ sexism, is the labor 
market. And this labor market has locked women out at best into a 
combination of welfare and marginal work. 

As we witness a significant rise in the number of female heads of 
household, we must ask what tu'comes of a woman raising a family 
alone/Sht^ becomes; another victim of poverty. Poverty that, is in- 
creasitigly becoming eefuated with onegender done. We call this 
phenomenon the feminization of poverty, ^ 

* One in every three families headed by women liye in poverty. 
Female heads of household re[)resent IT) percent of all families, but 
half of all poor families; IS out of the 20 lowest paid occupations 
are occuf)ied predominantly by women. Older women and women 
of a)lor are especially disadvantaged-. 

The Federal (Government is the largest employer of women. But 
in.GovernYnent, again, wdlnen are constantly traded in traditional- 



3 



^ 2\\ 

ly female jobs, which represents 7() percent of th(^ lowe^paid posi- 
tions. And while there* are approxiniati^ly 4() million w(mien work- 
► ers, Tf) percent ol" them are single, widowed, divorced, or married to 
men who earn less than $10,000 a year. J 

Let us look lor a moment at disparities in income. White women 
.^^irn (50 cents lor- every dollar eanled Ry white men. Black women 
earn rv() cents; and Hispanic women earn 52 [)ercent. The medium 
income fer black children under the age of (5 with working mortiers 
is two-thirds that of white children. Black children's mothers work 
^ an average of :57.S hours per year longer and receive less money. 

70.1 percent of all black children live in families whose incomes are 
less than twice tbe^ poverty level. Most of this Nation s poor are 
white. . y 

H As we conlVoiM the issues of pay equities, it is important for us to 

link this with tfjie inequajities of work fair. This new ide^ifrfid its 
beginning in the misconc(*ption that people enter the welfare 
system to escai)e from earning a livang by working. The poor are 
forced into the welfare system out of necessity to survive; the ne- 
cessity to survive. 

The rise and the* need ic assistance is a byproduct of the 

sorry state of the economy, the impact of which is felt most acutely 
by poor women. 

The* issues of work fair and pay equitie*s are i|iterrelated. It is 
providing womeMi who are stuck at the bottom, and confined to tra- 
ditional female^ jobs. It is forcing them to move to public assistance. 
I assure you this is not the answer. 
^ P^veM'y woman's labor must be fairly compensated. Work fair does 
not w'ork and it is not fair. We have the utmost faith in our 
. Nation. If only it can find the courage to deal honestly with the 
problems which America facOs. 

Therevfore, I appear here today to support H.R. and H.R. 

5092, in the hope* that [)assage of these two bills will correct these 
inequities too long ignore?d and right these injustices which ad- 
versely impact on women. 

It is our position that pay equity for all workers is and will 
remain one of the domfinant issues of the 1080's. It underscores the 
issue of equality for all women. 

The P\*deral (Government has a responsibility to take the lead in 
erasing the ine^juities by setting the foundation for parity, that 
must be applied in the private sector. 

The issue of adequate job evaluation is critical for job parity. 

We support this position of the National (Committee for Pay 
. Equity on evaluating job categories by using a point system to com- 
pare salary levels. Comparable worth is emerging as a fact f)f life. 
i The fairness principle is embedded in this movement, and it cannot 

be ignored. 

We applaud those States and local governments that have al-; 
ready taken the stand in favor of pay equity, whether due to volun- 
tary initiative or to citi/en cj^^ri^and. Such efforts prove that support 
from all sectors of our society is and will be key in dismantling 
work force segregation to the benefit of us all. Just as Fanny Lou 
Haymer challenged injustice, we must ^continue to do ao. In the cer- 
tain knowledge that as we improve conditions for wome/i, we are 
' building a better America. 



2.i 



ERIC 



24 



I am gnilMlul for this opportunity to be with you this morning. 
Thank ypu vepijriuch. 

Ms. OAinWt'^^ar^ vt^ry much, Mrs. Jackson, for your elo- 
quent and moving stjltement. The Chair and members of the com- 
mittee are very grat^l to you and Reverend Jackson for your ap- 
pearance here todayJ 

Thank you very much. 

Our next witness is Mrs. Joan Mondale, who is represer^tinX Vice 
President Mondale. 1 

Joan, if you would fike'to come forward. It is the Chair's under- 
standing that you are accompanied by (Jfeniiis Ter Wisscha, who is 
a modern day hero to some of us. We are very happy Jo have you 
here. 

^ Joan, many of your friends and admirers, including the people in 
Cleveland that you helped so much in the area of arts, call you 
Joaa of Art. We think that you have made a great contribution to 
the growth of the arts and humanities. Your leadership in that has 
been truly outstanding. 

You have also been a leader in an issue that affects all women— 
the issue of fairness. , 

We are grateful that^ you could come today and bring Glennis 
with you. 

Joan, you may proceed in any way that is most comfortable. 
Thank you very much for being here. 

STATKMKNT OF JOAN A. >I()M)ALK 

Mrs. MoNDAi.K. Thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman Oakar. It is 
an honor for me to appear before your subcommittee this morning, 
focusing on pay equity. ' ' ^ 

^ You are addressing an issue of deep personal comnlitment on 
P>itzj}art and my part, because pay equity is one of the most fun- 
danriental issues of economic justice in our time. 

More than 20 years ago, wh^n Congress yiacted the Equal Pay 
Act, the average full-time woman worker efrned about $().()() for 
every. dollar earned by a man. And since then we have sent astro- 
nauts to the Moon and we have cracked the genetic code. But we 
have r;^ot narrowed the gender gap in the wages of American work- 
ers. . A. 

Today, we must addres's this fundamental breach of economic jus- 
tice. And the bills that you are considering would require the Fed- 
eral Govern/nent, our Nation's largest employer, to abide by its 
own laws. They would have a tremendous impact on the over 1 mil- 
lion women who work for the Federal Government. And it Would 
be the first step toward changing the policies of private efnployers. 

These bills would build upon oil^pr recent steps toward pay 
equity. As Vice President, Frit/ was proud to have worked for the 
passage of the ('ivil Service Reform Act, which required equal pay 
for work of equal value in P'ederal jobs. And he/was proud to work 
for the signing of the P]xecutive order that proh'ibite^ gender-based 
discrimination by P'ederal contractors. 

And in his Presidential campaign, my husband has also proposed 
a r)-point plan that would continue his fight for pay equity. His 
plan includes: 



^ 2 i 



f 

First, directing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission' 
to publish guidelines on what constitutes gender-based wage dis- 
crimination; 

' --od, appointing people to the EP:OC, Departmeni of Justice, 
hce of Federal Contract Compliance, people committed to 
ufty; 

^hirdxlirecting that the Federal wage scale be reviewed to elimi- 
nate discrimination; * 

Fourth, establishing a Federal pay equity clearinghouse; and^ 
last, perhaps most important, 

Fifth, making the Oval Office a place of^ moral leadership on the 
subject of pay equity. 

Pay equity is a family issue and it is a poverty issue. It is an 
aging issue, because retirement benefits are often based on wages. 
And it is a racial issue, because black and Hispanic working 
women are plagued by poverty far more often than men or white 
women. But, above all, it is an issue of human dignity. 

There is no one in America more qualified to address^!this last 
point than the next witness, Glennis Ter Wisscha. Slie is'one of the 
Willmar Eight. A group of eight Minnesota women so outraged by 
the injustices of wage discrimination th«^they sacrificed their jobs, 
their livelihoods, and 4 years of their lives to fight. * 

In today s hearings you have heard a lot of sUitistics and expla- 
nations, but I doubt if you will hear anything more compelling 
than what Glennis Ter Wisscha has to say this morning. 

Hers is a story of milliotis of American women who must suffer 
the pain of being paid less than they know they are worth. 

As a woman, and as the mother of a daughter who has just start- 
ed her career, and as someone who has talked to thousands of 
women du^-ing this last year all across the country, I applaud your, 
efforts as the first step toward insuring that the story of the Will- 
mar Eight will not be repeated. 
Thank you. , ^ 

Ms. Oakak. Thank you, Mrs. Mondale. 

And, Glennis, we would xbe happy to hear from you at this time. 

STATEMENT OF (JLENNIS TER WISSCHA 

Ms. Ter Wisscha. Thank you, Joan. And thank you. Chairwoman 
Oakar. . ^ 

If I start booming as I get excited, please let me know. 

Ms.^ Oakar. That is all right. You can boom all that you want. 

Ms. Ter Wisscha. Thank you. I am very honored to testify before 
the subcommittee today on an issue of tremendous concern to me 
arid to American women all over, and that is pay equity, 

I would' like to tell you a little something about my experience^ 
with this issue, and I will be able to answer, hopefully, all the ques- 
tions you may have for me later. 

As Mrs. Mondale told you, I am from Willmar, Minn. I was born 
there; brought up near there, and after I graduated from high 
school, I worked there. And I guess. that is where the stOry really 
begins. 

1 1 n October 1976, when I was IH, I interviewed for a job at the 
Citizens National Bank in Willmar. I got the job for $1(K) a week 



26 

gross salary. That was not much money, but then again, rtone of 
the women at the bank earned'that much. Irene Wallen, who had 
^had almost 20 years of banking experience^as grossing ^565- a 
month. 

After I had worked there for 1 mpnth, the bank hired a new em- 
ployee. A man. Although, he had absolutely no banking experience, 
tbey hired him at a salary of $700 gross a month. 

The bank pj-esident told us'that we would train the new employ- 
ee, and once he had l(f)arned everything that'we had to teach him, 
he would become one of our new bosses. None of us had been given 
the chance to apply for this position. I did not mind it so much for 
myself, I had only worked there 1 month, but I was concerned 
about the other women; most of whom had worked in that bank for 
many years. 

I complained about it to my mother, who, worked in a bank in 
the early 1950's, and she said, '^'But, Glennie," she said, **it was 
that wajy when I was in the bank, and it will probably be that way 
forever. ' And I guess that is really when I started to get angry. 

I did not want to have to live in a future where, should I have a 
daughter, I would have to tell her at some point: *'But, dear, that is 
the way it has always been, and that i^ the way it always will be." 
I thought how I would feel if she came home and cried on my 
shoulder about this same problem. I could not tell her that I had 
been in thfe^^same position and did not do anything about it. 
- So, with the other women I filed a lawsuit in mid-November 
1976. We did not think of ourselves as feminist. To us at that point, 
feminists w(?re radicals and we did not want to be that. 

We were optimistic. Looking back, I would say naive about our 
chances. We thought it would take us 1 month to get a decision 
down from the EEOC. But as delay followed delay, we realized that 
it might take years. 

We decided that the only true way to fight was to organize a 
union, so we could negotiate a nondiscrimination clause io our con- 
tract. 

We had our union election im May; and in June we started nego- 
tiations. I^)oking back at it now, I think that the bank decided that 
. beating us would not be enough. They wanted to literally humiliate 
us. 

The chairman of the board read a newspaper during negotiations 
and during our bargaining sessions. And the sessions, first negotia- 
tions, and then mediations, dragged on and on. Meanwhile at the 
bank, things were getting worse. 

The nonunion tellers wo'rked all day in the indoor teller win- 
dows, while the union tellers were assigned to work at the drive-up 
window. It was not insulated, and temperatures inside the windows 
dropped 20° from the inside temperatures. 

We filed 1() unfair labor practice complaints before we decided to 
strike. We struck on December 16, 1977. I do not know how many 
of you have ever experienced a Minnesota winter. But to say that 
y it is cold is being quite reserved. 

Ms. Oakar. I am from Cleveland, I understand. 

Ms. Ter Wisscha. This particular winter of 1977 and 1978 set all 
new records for wind chills, which were probably broken in the 
winter of 1983-84. "But we decided, the eight of us, that the strike 



er|c 



31 



27 

was our job,, and that we would be on that job every minute that 
the bank was^pen. 

Thk» eight oVus would start to work at H in the ^iiorning, and 9 
s()me of'us. would take a half-hour break sitting in a car that we 
kept running in front of the bank getting ready for our next shift. 
Then we would go hack on the line and so on. 

When the wind chill temperatures dropped to To degree^ below 
y. zero, our eyes would freeze shut. AndTon our shift, we would have 
to thaw them out with the palms of oi;r hands. So it went until the 
bank closed at o::i(\ And so it went day after day through the 
winter and into the spring when our NLRB hearing was delayed. 
And ultimately through the summer, fall, and winter until the 
NLRB handed down its decision inVthe spring of 1!)?!). 

I will talk about that decision in\a moment. But first I want to 
talk about what kept us going. Part o^t was our confidence in the 
. system. We were sure that we were right, and we believed that we 
would got justice. , I /^'^\' 

A lot of it^was Just plain pure anger. We-^/ere riWd at the bank 
for refusing 'to' see our case. We were m^d at the icabs that they 
hired to do our work, and mad most of at the system that al/ 
lowed it to happen. 7 

But what kept us going mo^iL^of all was inside of /s, we each felt 
a bit, of pride and outrage, a sen^that we would bfe vindicated and 
. that justice would prevail. We hadNittle else.^^^nad no money, we 
had no jobs, nothing but our picket^ line, our pride and each other. 

If we had given them up, we would have lost everything. So 
there was not any way that we (*ould quit. But it was not just our 
pride that was at stake, but it was the pride of women all over the 
country. As the newspapers picked up our story, it seemed that ev- 
eryday that we would get letters saying, hang in there, you are 
fighting for me, too. 

I still remember the letter that we got from a woman working in 
a bank in Georgia. She told me that the conditions were just as bad 
there where she was, but that ^she could not afford to lose her job 
by organizing and inevitably striking. 

Her letter was full of rage, pain, and frustration. The sense that 
art injustice had been done to her, but that her hands had been 
tied. She was so frightened that she would lose her job that she 
counted on, that she did not even sign her name. After five pages, 
she signed it anonymous. 

We were frightened, too, but at least we had each other. When 
one of us had a bad day, the other seven would pick us up. 
Through the 18 months that we were on strike, we never broke 
down at the same time until the NLRB made its decision and we 
lost. 

The NLRB ruled that the bank practices were not the cause of 
the strike. Of the 16 unfair labor practices, only 2, 1 of them that 
the bank had failed to invite linion personnel to a company picnic, 
were upheld. 

The bank was only forced to post a notice on the bulletin board 
for 60 days saying tHat they would not discriminate against union 
personnel in the future, and to later by attrition to pffer us back 
our jobs by seniority. That is when we all cried. 



ERLC 



3^ 



We ca^)ssod out the word strike'on our picket^igns, and bannered 
the hank for months afterward, so that everyone in the community 
would know that the bank was guilty of unfair -labor practices, but 
it did not matter. The people in Willmar just knew that we had 
lost. And in a way, of courvse, we had technically. 

But the funny thing is we won. Another bank in Willmar orga- 
nized not long ago, and it went smoothly and quietly. I got called 
back to work at Citi/x^n's National in October And to my si^t- 

isfaction, I resigned soon after. 

But most important, we were proud about what we did. I would 
do it again. And I think that I could comfortably say that the other 
wofhen would, also. We had absolutely nothing in common. We 
span more than 20 years, practice different religions, came from 
different backgrounds. 

The only thing that we found to have in common was that we 
worked at Citizen's National Bank, and we were women. We also 
had pride. And that is probably the only thing that survived. 

Far too many wofnen have been forced to give up, and I guess 
that is why I am here today. I am speaking not for just myself 
here, but for every woman 'who is in indignity of being paid less 
than she is worth. 

Millions of American women will never have college degrees nor 
professional jobs. For them work means the daily grind in offices, 
factories, hospitals, and schools. But they deserve the pride that 
comes from doing a job well and being paid fairly. They deserve 
thfeir pride in themselves. 

Today with these hearings, you are beginning to recognize the 
claims of pride. Walter Mondale, whose wife Joan introduced me 
here today, has made the fight for pay equity a central issue in his 
campaign. The issue is justice, nothing more, and nothing less. 

I still foelieve after the experiences that justice can and will be 
done. I thank you. 

Ms. Oakar. Well, we want to thank you for your very important 
Testimony, because yourself experienced the pain and indignity af 
not being treated fairly. And for you to come forward is very im- 
portant to this committee. 

I will ask my colleagues to limit their questions to about 2 min- 
utes each, because of the time restraints of the witnesses. 

Mr. Bosco, do you have any questions? 

Mr. Bosco. Thank you, Madame Chairman^ have no questions. I 
simply want to express my gratitude to Mfs. Mondale and Ms. Ter 
Wisscha for very fine testimony that I am sure that we will keep in 
mind as we review this legislation. 

Ms. Oakar. Thank you. Mr. Oilman. 

Mr. Oilman. Thank you. Madam Chair. I want to thank the wit- 
nesses for appearing here today. 

I would like to ask, Glennis, just what did EEOC do with regard 
to your case, how effective were they? 

Ms. Ter Wisscha. Well, the lawsuit initially involved 11 women. 
The total back pay allotted to us by the EEOC was $11^700. That 
had to do with injustices dating back 20 years. The EEOC was basi- 
cally the monetary result. It had no effect on our negotiations nor 
on our strike. They were two separate issues. 



However, during negotiations, we did sign an out-of-court settle- 
lent with the EKOC in an attempt to get a contract. It obviously 
id not work. 



r. Oilman. At what point did yyu sign the agreement with 



Ms. Tkr Wi^cha. Well ( 

Mr. (iiLMAN. How long after you filed u complaint'^ 
Ms. Tkr W'isscha. At this point, I would stiy that it was very 
rapid. We filed a complaint in October li)7(), and we signed off on 
it, I believe, in November or December of li)78. 

Mr. Oilman. And thereafter, there vj'M not any further activity 
by EEOC, is that correct? 

Ms. Tkr Wissc^ha. That is correct. . 
Mr. Oilman. But that was at your own voluntary action? / 
Ms. Tkr Wisscha. Yes. , ^ ^ 
^Mr. Oilman. As far as you know, did the EEOC respond in an 
expeditious manner in handling your case*^ 

Ms. Tkr Wisscha. Well, sir, we do have some complaints about 
the way that the EEOC handled our particular case. It was ^ious 
that the attorney that was given to us by the EEOC had been sub- 
jected to quite a few pressures. She and I had gotten into quite a 
few verbal arguments over the telephone. 

And at one point she said, ''How do you expect me to get a settle- 
ment when the bank is sitting across the desk from me, and calls 
are coming ovef from all over the country telling us to settle?'* 
And I got^a very desperate feeling from her as far as her responsi- 
bility. 

We did bring it up to Eleanor Holmes Norton, who was at that 
time the head of EEO. And she wrote us back a letter saying that 
after reviewal of the case, she felt that it was a fair and equitable 
settlement. And we left it at that.. 

Mr. Oilman. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair. 

Ms. Oakar. Thank you very much. Mr. Leland. 

Mr. Leland. Thank you very much. Madam Chair. I really ap- 
preciate the testimony. I feel rather empathetic with you. At one 
point, I worked at a can company, and I refused to do a job that I 
was not classified tovdo minutes before it was time for me to go 
home. 

It took 9 months for the union to finally settle the problem with 
the company. However, they refused to give' me back pay,^o I told 
them where to take the job. 

Ms. Oakar. And here you are. ^Sllb 
Mr. Leland. ^nd here I am. I will fix them. [LaugH^^x 
Your testimony is rather compelling. I really appreciate it. t am 
really happy that all of you could come h#re today, particularly in 
the middle of your campaigns to be First Lady, to dramatize what 
it is that women are seeking, that justice is what you are talking 
about. 

I OTink that we need to address this issue at all times, not just at 
campaign time, until there is equality^for all people. 

Mrs. Mondale, I would like to ask y«u one question. If we pass 
the ERA, would we still have to sit here and hear problems such as 
those we are hearing today? 




35-003 0-84-3 



30 



Mrs. MoNDALK, I think that the equal rights amendment and pay 
equity go hand in hand. Equal rights is translated into equal pay 
for work of comparable value, 

Mr. Lkland. Well, the reason that I ask the question is terribly 
partisan. I apologize to my colleagues on my left, my far left if you 
will, if I insult them by being so partisan, but I am very disgusted 
at the fact that this President will support the I^A and will not 
support 'pay equity for women. He has. created an environment that 
istather contrary to the interests of equality cflid justice. 

I know that you tigree with me, and you do not have to respond. 
I am just so proud that you would be here today doing what you 
are doing. . t 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. Oakar. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Albosta, you are a member of the committee,^ Would you like 
to make a brief statement, and perhaps ask a question? Thank you 
for being here. 

Mr. Albosta. Thank you very much. Madam Chairperson. I feel 
very honor(jd to be here today. Because the Subcommittee on 
Human Resources is also looking into the question of equity for 
women. Not only equity in pay, but equity in. employees in the Fed- 
eral Government being RJF'd, whether the job opportunitie*s are 
given to that group of^people, whether our human resources within 
the Federal Covernrfient are treating women fairly. 

And I appreciate Very much listening to you^ Mrs. Mondale, tell- 
ing about the plan that your, husband has. I wish him all of the 
success in th^* world. I hope that he gets to implement that. 

But more than that, I think that the case in Minnesota where> 
the lady stood up and was counted "is the kind of action that I think 
moves Coimi^ss, moves people in the Nation to believe more that 
women sbOuld have those equal opportunities and those equal pay^ 
opportunies that go with that. >^ 

And to all of you, I just want to commend you. I do not have any 
particular questions. But I would like to ask the chairperson for 
unanimous consent to enter my statement into the record at this 
point. 

Ms. Okar. Without objection. 

Mr. Albosta. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Albosta follows:] 

r 

Statkmknt ok ('()N(;Kfr:sHMAN Don Aijiosta 

Madam Chair, thank you for the opportumty to present this statement to the sub- 
committee today, I commend yoH for continuing to demonstrate your leadership on 
the issue of equal pay for comparable work. 

The Subcommittee on Human Resources, which I chair, has worked closely With 
your subcommittee, in an effort to deterrnino the causes for lower pav i;i occupa- 
tions which are predominantly held by women. The Post Office and Civil Service 
Committee is particularly concerned with pay equity in the public sector, and I be- 
lieve the Fedt'ral Government should play a leading role, as an employer, in the 
struggle to achieve equal pay for women. 

Last March, I joined you, and a numb<»r of our. colleagues, in requesting that the 
(reneral Accounting' Office (GAO) conduct an in-depth review of pay equity in the 
Federal government. I believe that this study will help clarify the causes of inequi- 
ties in pay for women, and determine how evaluation and classification systems 
UBed in the Federal government may be improved, to eliminate these inequities. As 
y\u know, GAO has already completed a portion of this study, which examined re- 
vised classification standards for Federal librarians. GAO isnow reviewing several 



P\*deral evalualion and Class i Heal ion systiuiis, as well as systems used in the prrvalo 
sector and by State Kovernments. I am hopeful that we will he ahle to determine, 
from this portion of the study, where biases exist in evaluating positions held mostly 
by women. 

The Subcommittee on Hun; an Resources also has jurisdiction over reductions-in- 
force, which may result from agency reorganizations or contract conversions, and I 
am concerned about the effect of HIFs on wonu^n in public service positions. As you 
know, many agencies are now reviewing the possibility of contracting out Federal 
libraries, and other activities employing many women. I believe the legislation you 
are considering Tor pay equity in both the public and private sectors, will help 
ensure that women who are involuntarily separated from the Civil Service can re- 
ceive equal pay for similar positions in the private sector 

I look forward to'continuing our work on the issue of pay equity for Federal work- 
ers. With tife (lAO study and the hearings you are holding this week, I believe our 
Committee is taking the first steps necessary to ensure that women in the Civil 
Service receive the financial benefits commensurate with their work product and 
qualifications. 

Ms. Oakar. Glennis, if I could just ask you one quick question. 
You went through that ordeal.^Obviously. you are close to the Mon- 
dale family, or you would not be on the same panel. 

What advice are you going to give to Vice P^resident Mondale 
and Mrs. Mondale to remedy the pay inequity among women. 
What specific advice can you give them? 

Ms. Ter Wisscha. I guess in reading over the literature that I 
have gained from various people on Mr. Mondale's stand on pay 
equity, I find that he is very, very much educated in that area, and 
I am not isure that there is much that I can say that could add to 
his knowledge at this point. 

However, I think that whatever happens and whatever thought 
comes in in relation to pAy equity, that the consideration for cost of 
i^s implement be put aside in any able way. The question of how 
much justice costs makes me really embarrassed that it should 
even have to be raised. J \^ 

It is a fact that women have been paid inequitably for thousands 
and thousands of years. I do. not think that anyone expects an im- 
mediate remedy. But I think that it is something that should be 
expected and anticipated for. ' 

Ms. Oakar. Joan, how do you see the Mondale Presidency imple- 
menting fairness for more than r)()Npercent of this country's popula- 
tion in the area of pay equity? \ 

Mrs. Mondale. I think that there is a certain amount of moral 
leadership that can be exerted to set a standard. 

I think closer attention to budget considerations, to pieces of leg- 
islation that affect women and affect their ability to raise their 
families. 

At one time Fritz had a family-impact statement which he pro- 
posed be attached to each piece of legislation that was passed by 
the Houses of Congress, which I think is a very good remind>Br of 
how often unwittingly laws are passed that really damage the 
family or damage a woman's ability to support the family. 

Ms. Oakar. Thank you. f 

I want to thank all of you very much for coming. We know this 
is a busy time for you, and we know that your schedule necessi- 
tates that you leave at this time. 

* I know Judy Goldsmith is here from NOW, and the NEA presi- 
dent and all your good friends. But the Chair would like to extend 



:]2 

to you the courtesy of thafiking you and asking you to stay, if you 
can. If you cannot, we understand. 
Thank you very much. ^ 

Our next witness is representing candidate Gary Hart. Last 
night we found out that Mrs. Lee Hart was unable* to attend. But I 
cannot think of a better representativ<^ to substitute for Lee and 
Gary, than Lee s sister, Martha Keyes, who was one of the distin- 
guished people in this'Congress for many years\ 

Martha, if you would just come forward. Representative Keyes, 
as a Member of Congress, personally worked tirelessly, on behalf of 
women. , ' 

I had the pleasure of working cl9sely with Martha on another 
issue that is interrelated to pay equity, social security.* There is a 
thumb rule that says, if you are paid poorly when you are younger, 
you are bound to be poor when you fhii.older. 

Martha, we are delighted that you are able to be here. I know 
that if I could not make /in engagement, I would certainly send my 
sister, Helen. • ' 

Thank you for taking the. time to be here. 

Martha, yoii know more than anyone, the rules around here. You 
can proceed according to whatever is most comfortable foV, you. 

. STATKMENTOF MARTHyKKYKS, FORMER REPRESENTATIVE IN 

( ()N(;ress vrom the state of Kansas 

Ms. Kkyes. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And it is a delight 
to be here. And if I could speak personally first, I want to thank 
you for what you are doing in this hearing to bring attention to 
this. 

I think the idea of inviting the Presidential candidates to come 
themselves or be represented her^ is wonderful; and the evidence 
of the extra attention that you have been able to bring 'to this 
matter is all around us/ ^ 

It has been a treat tor me to be arble to hear both Mrs. Jackson, 
Mrs. Mondale, and particuljirly to have the special additional testi- 
mony- of Glennis, and the record of her history which we all 
watched on the television dramatization and had the good fortune 
to hear again today. It certainly give^dded impetuous 'to this very 
important subject. • " ^'^x^^^-— 

I am d^ighted to be here to Justify on behalf of Senator Gary 
Hart. An^ he and Lee and I were^talking about this 3s recently as 
2 days ago. There was still some b^iaught that he might be able to 
come; he wanted very much to come) himself as he did 2 jears ago 
when he testified before yoar committee on this very issue. 

As a matter of fact, he asked fne to do it, and -I am delighted to 
bring you his remarks, which h^ has made in the context of being a 
Presidential candidate. 

It is very clear that his record in the Senate as well as his record 
in this campaign has emphasized the fact that there is no more im- 
portant issue before us than the issue of pay equity, both in the 
Federal sector of employment as well as in the public and private 
secfor work places throughout the country. 

It is interesting that this President of this admijiistration has 
consistently characterized the record of his administration in terms 



of what he has done to restore the economy to bolster the Ameri- 
can family, and to return to a higher standard of morality. But his 
words really carry a ring of incredible hypocrisy for about 48 mil- 
. lion working women in \he United States. Because they know that 
there is no greater moral issue in this country than the institution- 
alized wage discrimination against women and minorities. 

They know that there is no greater family issue than the poverty 
; that is forced on families headed by women by a sex-segregated ' 
system of employment. ^ 

And they know that, there is no greater economic issue then 
simple pay equity. And their right to be compensated for their 
work based on skills, resporisibilities, and effort and working condi- 
' tions rather than on sex or color. 

They know that the Reagan record on these issues is one of pur- 
poseful failure to lead. Purposeful failure to respond to needs. And 
purposeful failure to enforce the law. 

In fhe last 30 years a number of women in the. labor force has 
more than doubled. The number of m(^n has increased only a quar- 
ter. And, y^t, the basic ratio of female-to-male earnings has re- 
mained the same. 

It is clear that the responsibilities of women have changed drasti- 
cally. Nearly 75 percent tf the, women are single, divorced, or 
living with someone who makes less than $15,^)00 per year. But 
^ though we have, assigned more than equal responsibilities to 
women, we do not pay them wages that are equivalent to thoi>e 
paid to men. 

The result is that 49 percent of female-headed households are 
below the^poverty line. And in the last 20 years the number of per- 
sons in poor families headed by women of color has increased by 
more than 50 percent. 

I would like for you to notice the chart, which I think portrays 
very pictorially the statistics that are important to us that, have 
really been stated by so many of the witnesses Yoday. 

From 1953 to 1983, the number of women in the labor force has 
increased.. A little oyer 19 million, it originally was in 1953; and 
■^vvnow it is over 48 million. The percentage of women working in- 
creased from 34 percent to 53 percent. The jjercentage of working, 
married women with child^ren under 6 grew from 15.5 percent to an 
amazing 50 percent. And the number of households maintained by 
females increased from 4 million in 1953 tb 10 million in 1983. 

These statistics represent fundamental changes in both the labor 
^ market ^nd in the roles of women in pur society. And, yet, during 
this same 30-year period women's earnings, as a percentage of 
men s earnings, actually decreased from 63.9 percent to 61 percent, / 

With this recalcitrant wage gap, it is no surprise that having 
job is far less likely to protect a woman than a man from poverty. 
\ Looking at the 1982 Census Bureau figures iji the second chart, 
' you can see that 22 percent of households headed by working 
women, wCftnen with jobs, are poor. 

And when you look at only the families with children headed by 
working women, ^9 percent are poor. You can compare that to a 6- 
percent poverty rate overall for families where the head of the 
household works, but is not a woman. ^ 



ERIC 



/ 

( 

:m ' 

These finure.^ transfer into a stark reality in which the woman 
heading a family is nearly six tirnos more likely to be {)oo. than a 
man. 

A black woman heading a family is 10 tiriies more likely to be 
poor than a whit^ man. 
And a Hispanic woman ll-'times more'likely. 

It is im[)ortant to look at the Reagan administration's Response 
to tliis kind of progress. The landmark Su[)reme Court decision in 
the Gunt.AT C'dse opened the book to pay equity through new litiga- 
tion nearly *\ years ago. But it is a door that has collected cobwebs 
while standing ajar waiting on an administration unwilling to help 
working women cross the threshold to nondiscriminatory earnings. 

The response of the KEO(^ tt) (lunther was what it calls an inter- 
im policy to provide their field staff with guidelines on the process- 
ing of wage discrimination charges. 

Three years later KECX.^ has yet to promulgate permanent guide- 
lines or a plan for testing the parameters of title VII. v 

The 'interim guidelines have been reviewed over and ovdf^ but 
are not being followed by EEOC. And most EB^PC field staffers do 
not even^know that they exist. 

The B]E(X^ under thi.> administration has not filed a single pay 
equity legal action under title VII. Only in the last month in re- 
sponse to congressional hearings has the EEOC even begun, to con- 
sider the pile up of charges that have been filed since yninthe[' 
decision. 

Pwen worse, the Justice Department has threatened to rolipoack 
gains won by working won1f% through litigation. ' 

Assistant Attorney (General for Civil Rights, William Bradford 
Reynolds, announced opposition to^ the historic Washington State 
pay equity decision earlier this year without even reading fhe tran- 
scripts of the case. 

As an^employer, the Federal Government has taken absolutely 
no steps to eliminate bias in its pay system, even though the wage 
gap in the federal sector is a known fact with women earning less 
than ()\\ percent of the wages men earn. Men who work for the Fed- 
eral Government. 

In fact, I believe you were part of the committee, Madame Chair- 
person, -which found in examining the relationship between the 
percentage ♦of men in an occupation in the Federal sector, and the 
average salary of that occupation each additional percentage point 
of men in the job category increased the average annual earnings 
by $176.00. V 

Furthermore, affirmative action regulations, those that we had 
under the Office of Federal Contract Compliance program, which 
prohibit race and sex discrimination by Federal contractors have 
been eliminated. 

F^ortunately, the various States, of our union are not all con- 
trolled by this administration. Seventeen of those States have un- 
dertaken job evaluation studies of their civil service systems. More 
than half of the States have conducted extensive research into the 
source of wage discrirjiination. Other States have approached the 
need for pay equity with creative legislation and 'policy solutions. 



Many, many labor unions are bargaining successfully for pay 
equity, and are providing the funds and the expertise for more and 
more legal actions. 

It is possible and it is being done, but it is being done without the 
help of the Federal Government. It is unthinkable, given the need 
and Xhe demand for pay equity that our Nation's largest employer 
and the chief enforcer of our laws is providing no leadership on pay 
equity. Ignoring, its statutory obligation to enforce titje VII of the 
Civil Rights Act, and actually engaging in sex-based wage discrimi- 
nation as an employer. 

What has been the response of this administration to the 
demand for pay equity? It has steadfastly responded that if women 
want to earn more money, they should enter man-dominated job 
categories. 

The response of Gary Hart, and that of the laws of this land are 
that working women have the right to compensation free from dis- 
criniination in whatever job they hold. 

To try to accomplish pay equity-^ through job resegregation would 
require two out of three people in the country to change jobs. And 
require womsn to give up years of seniority and experience, in jobs 
theylhaay want to work in. 

What we should be doing is removing discrimination from all 
jobs, not generating simplistic rhetoric and ignoring the Constitu- 
tion of the United States. 

Gary Hart would do thirl^s differently a^ President of the United 
States. c " 

I would like to say that his ideas on the subject of pay equity .are 
not very new, because they are the same ideas* that he has been 
fighting for during his entire time in the Senate. And they are the 
same ide^s that he testified to you before, Congresswoman Oakar, 2 
years ago before this committee. 

They are ideas that are routed in the straightforward belief that 
women should be paid equal wages for work of equal or comparable 
worth.* ' . 

As President, he will provide the leadership and the muscle, if 
necessary, to force the Federal Government to fulfill its responsibil- 
ity to working women. 

He will enforce title VII of the Civil Rights Act. And the Execu- 
'tive order prohibiting wage discrimination based on sex. He will 
appoint to the EEOC, the OFCCP, the Justice Department, the De- 
partment of Labor, the Office of Personnel Management, and other 
responsible Federal agencies, only indrtiduals who are committed 
to aggressively eliminating wage discrimination, and to the concept 
of pay equity, which he has outlined. 

He will instruct the EEOC to immediately develop and imple- 
ment a litigation plan for pay equity, and to provide extensive di- 
rection and training to the field staff in the processing of wage-dis- 
crimination charges. And he will instruct the Attorney General of 
the United States to fully support any and ^11 litigation in the area 
of pay equity and wage discrimination. And he will personally dis-'^ 
miss that Attorney Qeneral if she or he does not carry out his 
orders. 

As President, he will personally see to it that Federal Govern- 
ment takes a lead and shows leadership as an employer, and by the 



4o 



leadership vested in the President, to evaluate the Federal sector 
positions, the classification system,* and to determine if it contains 
bias, and to develop a bias-free evaluation system. 

He has reviewed the many positive steps that so many State and 
local governments have been taking.. And he has vowed that in 
each instance that he has^^studied, there has been an individual 
yho is personally committed to the idea of pay equity, and who has 
exercised the leadership, to, accomplish that in that local or State 
situation. 

In Gary Hart you have such an individual. I have known him for 
a long time, and I am proud of his commitment to the sensitivity 
and the knowledge that can make this happen. InHhe Oval Office 
as he has in his leadership in the Senate, today and tomorrow. 

Thank you for letting me bring the testimony for Gary Hart. 

Ms. Oakar. Thank you, Martha. As usual, it is great to have you 
here in the HaUs of Congress. I want to simply thank you for being 
here. I am not going.'to.as^ you questions, because I think you 
know the issue as well as anyone. I look f?irward to working with 
^ou on this issue and other issues. 

Do you have a question, Mr, Bosco? ^ 
<.Mr. Bosco. Thank you. Madam Chair. And I want to thank 
former Congresswoman Keyes for her very eloquent testimony. 

I have heard President Reagan extol, the, virtues of American 
family life many times. But in your testimony and that which pre- 
ceded it, it appears to me that this is as much a family issue as it is 
limited to a woman's issue, given that so many women have to 
work to support their families, and so many women head single- 
parent homes. 

How do you feel that the Rpagan administration s reluctance to 
support comparable pay actually coincides with its beliefs in Amer- 
ican family life, or do you believe that it does not? 

Ms. Keyes. As a matter of fact. Congressman, I believe that it 
does not. And I think that as you stated, and as Congresswoman 
Oakar stated in her initial remarks, this is a family issue. And cou- 
pled with the discrimination that we find in the retirement sys-' 
tems for women, it is a family issue and an aging issue. And it is a 
terrible tragedy, I think, on the quality of life that we should have 
in this country. 

Mr, Bosco. When men depend upon their wives to bring home 
part of the bread to support a family, does this not then also 
become a men's issue? . v 

Ms. Keyes. Very much. It becomes an issue of most of the fami- 
lies in this country, most of whom have two wage earners. And 
again, it has to be extended to the understanding that two-wage- 
earner families are also poorly treated by social security and many 
of our other retirement systems. 

So there is again this double burden that are borne by the men 
in two-wage-earner families as well as the women. 

Mr. Boscxx Thank you very much. 

And Madam Chair, I would simply like to say that it is refresh- 
ing to hear people who actually believe in something. I am sure 
that w;e will be told tomorrow by Phyllis Schlafiy and other repre- 
sentatives that probably look at things very much in the same way 
as the administration does of why we cannot do things. 



Hut it is nice to hear from people who have taken the time cu\d^ 
effort to put toKether fartHrrHjd thoughts, and information* on how 
we can do things. And I Tor one'appreciate that very much, 

Ms, Oakar. Thank you very much. You know, I recall when the 
Department of Labor put out their statistics a couple of months 
ago, and said that they had thousands of women who are making 
niore th^n their husbands. What some of the articles did not say Is 
that the reason they were in a higher wage bracket was because 
these husbands were unemployed, disabled, and had health prob- 
lems. 

P'igures can be somewhat misleading. I recall that the adminis- 
tration was very proud of that figure. 
^Mr. Hoyer, did you have any questions? 
Mr. HoYKK. No, Madam (Chairman, 
Ms. Oakar. Thank you again, Martha, for coming. 
.Ms. Kkvks. Thank you. 

Ms. Oakar. Our next witrfiessess, ixw Ms. Judy Ooldsraith, who is 
the president of the National Organization for Womer^ Ms. Mary 
Futrell, who is president of the National Education Association; 
and Mr. John Sweeney, whoiis the president of the Service Employ- 
ees Internation^il Union, AFL-CIO. 

The C'hair is personally grateful thdt ^ou thought that the issuje 
was important enough that you as presidents came to these hear- 
ings. 

Judy, we would like to start with you. We know of NOW's ef- 
forts. I recall the oO-cent buttons that we have all worn, and know 
that that is a focus of your organization. 

statkment of jl i)y (joi.dsiviith, president, national 
()R(;anizati()N for women 

Ms. Goldsmith. Madam Chairwoman, I fe^l privileged to be here 
today to have heard the very eloquent testimony on the subject. In 
particular, I am pleased to have heard the proud and brave story of 
the women from Willmar, Minn, I know that we are all awed by 
what they did. 

I am very grateful to you for dealing effectively with the critical 
subject of pay equity for the women of this country. 

I am very pleased to' have the opportunity to address this com- 
mittee today about the critical problem of sex-based wage discrimi- 
nation and the particular solutions offered by H.R. 4599, which will • 
win pay equity for Federal civil service employees. 

The National Organization for Women, the Nation's oldest and 
largest feminist organization with a quarter of a million members, 
have long been concerned about the economic impact- of sex dis- 
crimination on women, and the burden of increased cost it imposes 
on their lives. 

NOW supports Representative Oakar's bills, and views the legis- 
lation as an important and long overdue step in the eradicatioji of 
wage discrimination based on sex, race, and ethnicity throughout 
the Nation's labor forc^. 

As the Nation s largest employer, the Federal Government has a 
primary obligation to take the lead and set the national standard 
by eliminating such discriminatory compensation systems. 



4 J 



38 

H.R. 4r)99 is necessary to protect ^.he rights of this country's ap- 
proximately :\ million Federal workers, nearly 40 percent of whom 
are women. The wage gap stands currently at about GO cents for all 
women. Women who are civil servants fare only slightly better 
They are paid (i.S cents for every dollar paid to male Government 
workers. 

Occupational segregation plays a major role in this wage dispari-* 
ty. In i;)S2, more than (52 percent of all women employed in white- 
collar Government jobs were in grades 1 through 6, which pay less 
than .1>ir),000 per year, while less than 20 percent of men held jobs 
in these lower paying categories. 

Sex-based wage discrimination is against the law for both public 
and private, employers, whether an employer provides unequal pay 
for equal work or \inequal pay for different jobs of comparable 
value. , * 

The 1981 Supreme Court decision in County of Washington v. 
Gunther clearly established that such so-called comparable worth 
or pay equity cases are covered by title VII of the Civil Rights Act 
of 19()4. The Court also refused to revidw a favorable lower court 
pay equity decision in lUE v. Westinghouse , a companion case in- 
volving dissimilar male and female jobs which was pending when 
Gunther was decided. 

With these two actions, the Supreme Court absolutely estab- 
lished title VII jurisdiction over all pay-equity wage discrimination 
cases. Yet the Reagan aJmirtistration has persistently failed to en- 
force the law; 2 months after^e Gunther decision, while the Equal 
Opportunity Commission was still under the management of Carter 
appointees, guidelines regarding tfte investigation and litigation of 
pay-equity cases were issued by the EEOC, the agency which en- 
forces title VII. 

However, President Reagan's EEOC Chairman, Clarence 
Thomas, not only refuses to authorize his staff to enforce these 
guidelines. Re even refuses to acknowledge their existence. 

In the process. Thomas has created a backlog of more than 250 
cases of wage discrimination based on comparable worth violations. 
Between 1981 and 1988, Thomas has presided over a 74-percent • 
drop in th^number of enforcement cases filed by the EEOC against 
employers. 

Last December in the first significant test case since Gunther, 
U S. District Court Judge Elmo Tanner ruled in AFSCME v. State 
of Washington that Washington State violated title VII by paying 
workers in predominantly female jobs less than workers in pre- 
dominantly male jobs. 

Judge Tanner based his decision on what he termed overwhelm- 
ing evidence of "difect, overt, and institutionalised discrimation" in 
the hiring, pay, and promotions of women employed by the State of 
Washington. 

As with the Bob Jones University and Grove City College cases, 
the Reagan administration in the Washington State case has once 
again failed to reinforce a national commitment to fight discrimi- 
nation against all of our citizens. 

Instead, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, William 
Bradford Reynolds, has gone so far. as to say without even having 



4 J 



reviewed the trial transcript, that he has absolutely no doubt that 
Tanner s decision is wrong. 

Both the E^OC and the Justice Department i^e legally bound to 
enforce the law. Instead, the Reagan Justice Department is threat- 
ening to intervene in court on behalf of the discriminator in this 
case. Such an actibn would be an unprecedented step backward in 
public policy, and a total abdication of the Government's responsi- 
bility to uphold the laws against discrimination. 

In the light of the Reagan^dministration's recalcitrance to pro- 
tect the rights of victims of discrimination, the proposed legislation 
before us is particularly important. . 

Women and their families cannot afford to have the Federal Gov-'; 
ernment abandon them and their civil rights in these difficult eco- 
nomic times. Women's economic status has already worsened over 
tiie past three decades. And as all witnesses this morning have al- 
ready testified, racial discrimination compounds the economic prob- 
lems Which minority women face. 

Of all female workers, 60 percent are now paid less than $15,000 
per year, while only 28 percent of men fall into ^hjs category. 
Fewer than 4 percent of all women make more lhBn-$i;!O,0OO per 
year, while more than 25 percent of all men are paid th at ^salary. ^ 
Further, racial discrimination compounds the economic problems 
whi®h minority women face. In 1982, the wage gap for black and 
Hispanic Women was 55 percent and 51 percent, respectively. 

The effects of this wage discrimination on families are devastat- 
ing; 55 percent of all children iinder the age of 18 have mothers 
who work outside the home and many women are the sole^pport 
of their families.'The percentage of female-headed households has 
shown a dramatic 70-percent increase during the past decade. 
Today, 9.5 million families, or IG percent of the total, are headed 
by women; these families suffer from a poverty rate more than five 
times that of husband/wife families. ^ 

If current economic trends cpntinue,-j.the National Advis6ry 
Council on Economic Opportunity estimates that by the^year 2000, 
this Nation s poverty population will consist entirely of women and 

children. ..... ^ 

The wage gap is a major cause of the continuing feminization of 
poverty. The single most important reason for the wage gap is the 
sex discrimination that has resulted from severe and persistent oc- 
cupational segregation within both private and public sectors. Now, 
51 percent of women work in 20 of the 427 Department of Labor 
job classifications, and 80 percent of women work in occupations 
which ^ire predominantly female. 

A 1981 study, published by the National Research Council of the. 
National Academy of Sciences, shows that the more an occupation 
is dominated by women, the less it pays.* Employers pay the so- 
called women*s jobs less than men's jobs regardless of the skills, 
education, or training required to perform them. 

These occupations are segregated in order to pay women lower 
wages, and thus increase employer profits. Occupational segrega- 
tion of women into the lowest paying jobs has actually worsened 
during the last decade. Not only do women predominate in lower 
paying fields, but women's gains in higher paying job categories 
have not been nearly enough to offset that disparity. By 1982, 



4i 



40 



I 



women were 28 percent of executives and managers versus 17 per- 
cent in 1970, and 7 percent of all skilled craft workers in 1982 
versus 5 percent in 1970. Also, within every job category, an earn- 
ings gap exists. Sex distiVimination continues to cost women where- 

• ever they are in the labor market: female executives and managers 
are paid 60 percent of the wages paid to their male counterparts, 
female salespeople HO percent of men, female clericals 02 percent of 
men, and female craft workers 05 percent of men. 

This situation will change only when there is vigorous enforce- 
ment of existing antidiscrimination laws, and when sex is no longer 
a determinant of wages. ■ 

H.R. 4599 mandates the development and use of equitable job- 
evaluataon*4echniques to eliminate 'discriminatory wage differen- 
tials within the Federal Government's position classification 
system. 

There is nothing new or unusual about job-evaluation techniques. 
They were invented by management, and most employers use them 
to compare the internal relationship of diff^ent jobs and set wage 
rates on thq basis of. skill, Effort, respofTsifflity, experience, train- 
ing, education, ^'d vvorkipgxonditions. ' 

Representative Oakar<:§,bill gont/iinp other important provisions 
to promote pay-equity s'tiaiiaaritls , and eliminate discriminatory 
wage-settmg practices within the Federat.civil service system. H.R. 
4599 requires the Office of Personnel Manrfgeraent to study pay dis- 
crimination within the Federal pay structure and report its find- 
ings to this Committee within 6 months, a positive, and necessary 
^ first step as long as the personnel who undertake thii^ study are 
truly committed to the honest evaluation of all jobs. GuidelUies and 
technical assistance to correct pay discrimination found by this 
study a^to be developed, with amiximum 2-year timetable for im- 
plementation. Monthly reports,, dtrfmg the pay-adjustment process' . 
will be required from Federal agencies to guarantee compliahce, as 

• well as yearly progress re^rts from the 0PM. These are critical 
safeguards ta insure that the laudable intent of this legislation is 
carried out, and real equal employment opportunity and fair wages 
result. 

Women Government workers' wages and living standards have 
been kept intolerably low because of sex discrimination .have 
wages for all women who work outside of the home. Their talents, 
skills, and experience remain underutilized at a great cost to our 
economy and their families. 

Representative Oakar's bills present clear method^ to insure that 
the Federal Government obeys the law in compensation of its em- 
ployees, and we look forward to its rapid passage. By doi^ig so, Con- 
gress will send a strong message to Federal regulatory' agencies, 
public and private employers, and to President IJeagan that sex 
discrimination is unjust, illegal, and intolerable to the women of 
this nation. I thank you. 
■Ms. Oakar. Thank you very mucfi, Judy. ' ■ 
Our next 'witness is Mary Futrell, vyho is the president of the Na- 
tional Education Association. As a former teacher, I am especially 
delighted to have you here. I thifik that teachers know of the 
discrimination that exists. . 



41 

Mary, we are proud of you in your role as provident of one of the 
most, important unions in the country. Please proceed in whatever 
way is the most comfortable to you. ^ 

STATKMKNT OF MAUY HATWOOI) FUTRKLL, F^^iKSIDENT, 
NATIONAL KDUCATION ASSOC lATIofs 

Ms. FuTRELL. Thank you v^ry much. Madam Chaii\ my name is 
Mary Hatwood Futrell, and I am the president of the 1.7 millipn 
member National Education Association which represents teachers, 
education support personnel, and higher education faculty in all T;0 
of these United States. 

And I would like to say that it is indeed an honor to be here 
today to testify on this most important issue. And I appreciated the 
opportunity to hear at least three of the four presidential candi- 
dates who had representatives here to speak before the subcommit- 
tee on the pay equity issue. I think that it is unfortunate that the 
fourth candidate is not here to testify here today on the support 
side. 

NEA is pleased to have this opportunity 

Ms. Oakar. I want you to know that we invited him. 
Ms. Futrell. I am sure you did. 

NEA is pleased to have this opportunity today to present our^ 
views on the Pay Equity Act of 1984, H.R. 5092, and the Federal 
Employees Pay Equity Act of 1988, H.R. 4599. 

Although only a small percentage of the NEA membership is em- 
ployed in the Federal' sector. We believe that these two bills have 
important implications foM^ whole membership and for working 
women everywhere. ^t!r---.J^ 

The NEA policy on pay ^qii^s^^^ The resolution adopted by 
the 1983 representative asse^r^^^^r^^ It states ^in part!^ 

^ I The National Education AssociatiOTT Befieves that all workfys should be paid on 

the basis of the requirementii, sRills, and worth of their jobs, and that factors such 
as sex or race of the individual performing the job should never play^ role in deter- 
mining salary. \ 

In the past two decades, we have seen women enteir tRe work 
force as never before. We see them now representative in varying 
degrees in nearly all sectors aifd all job categories. 

Yet, Madam Chair, desjoilt^ these many gains, women still earn 
on the average roughly^^percent of what men earn. Women are 
still found predominantlyTn^sex~segregated-low-paying jobs, and we 
^ find an increasing number of women and their families living in 
poverty. 

NEA therefore believes that it is imperative that Congress con-, 
tinue to blunt the impact of moves by the administration to ^-enege 
on the Federal commitment to equality. 

You are to be commended for the leadership you have shoWn in 
sponsoring these bills, in holding these hearings, and in keeping 
^ the issue of wage parity at the forefront of public debate. Those of 
-as in education well understand the need to continue pressing for 
the close of the wage gap, the most persistent symptom of sexual 
inequality irr our Nation. 

Among NEA membership, and let me state that 70 percent of 
our members I are female, are first schoolteachers whose wages are 



ERLC 



depressed primarily because teaching has evolved as a women's 
profession. Second, women faculty members facing uphill battles to 
enter higher paid tenure positions in the colleges^and universities. 
' And third, education support personnel who are often stuck in job 
ghettos, where wage differentials occur more- com mdnly because of 
differences in job titles. rather than any real differences in job re- 
sponsibilities. 

Specificully, teaching is a profession in search of professional 
pay. At the same time that we are told that education has a high 
value in our society, we find that the average salary for a teacher 
in 1982 was $22,019. And I might add that was after 10 years at a 
master's degree. That is not the average just for teachers. 

Even in the large metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles with 
the Nation's second largest school district, teachers' beginning 
Wages were $18,500 in 1981. This salary qualified a teacher main- 
taining a family of four for food stamps, a fine commentary on the 
real value we place on education in the United States of America. 

So despite the value we supposedly place on the task performed, 
there is a gap in the real value the society is willing to pay for it. 
People who are in lifesaving, life-molding people jobs such as nurs- 
ing and teaching are repeatedly told through their paychecks that 
their work is less important than occupations which deal with ma- 
chines or dollars. 

Education support personnel are also not immune from 
undervaluation. A review of statistics compiled by the Education 
Research Service, Inc. in its ''Wages and Salaries Paid Support Per- 
sonnel in Public Schools, 1981-82" produces similar conclusions to 
those uncovered by NEA studies on teachers' wages. 

For hourly employees, ERS statistics showed that instructional 
teacher aides,, most of whom are female, earned $4.88 per hour. 
Cafeteria workers, also ,a predominantly female classification 
earned $4.67 an. hour. 

Meanwhile predominantly male job classes average moLft--wWi 
building custodians, not engineers, eaVning $5.9.5 an hour, a/d 
school bus drivers earning $6.26 an hour. / 

Nor are the lofty towers immune from earthly problems. Wage 
inequities persist in the Nation's institutions of higher education as 
well. Women comprise a little more than a quarter of all faculty in 
public and private institutions, mostly in the lower paid, lower 
status positions. 

Women college faculty on the whole were paid nearly 20 percent 
less than their male 'colleagues in 1981; Men on the average earn 
$26,000 while women average $21,000. 

While we talk about pay equity today, the NEA continues to give 
full commitment tp' the positive equal rights amendment which is 
critical toward redefinition of women's roles through conclusion in 
the Constitution. 

These past 5 years have brought with them a number of ad- 
vances around the country ^and 'the movement for pay equity in the 
workplace. We have seen a number of labor unions, employee asso- 
ciations, and some enlightened employers bring a greater sense of 
justice into the workplace through lawsuits, collective bargaining, 
or management action. 



43 



Yet we have seen no leadership to reinforce these actions from 
the current Reagan administration. In fact, their only actions have 
been to undo v^hat has been accomplished. 

Not only has the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
failed to vigorously pursue wage discrimination cases, the Reagan 
administration and Justice Department have shown no leadership 
in the enforcement of the laws against wage discrimination. 

Moreoever, the Justice Department has acted in a manner con- 
trary to the public good in the Washington case where it had an 
opportunity to prove that its negative image on women's; issues is 
due t(5 misinterpretation by the media. 

>^ Even a glimpse of current administration policy on important 
wage discrimination issues only reinforces the need To;* leadership 
at the naticfnal level, leadership which must come forth from the 
Congress. * 

The two bills being considered in this hearing represent a good 
attempt to help reverse the negligent stand now being taken by the 
Reagan administration' on these matters go vital to our society. 

The Pay Equity Act of 1984, H.R. 5092, by reaffirming the Feder- 
al Government's responsibility in enforcing present wage discrimi- 
nation laws represents a way to hold the administration at least 
minimally accountable on equality in the workplace, and lets the 
sunshine in on issues which are l;iidden from public view. 

In addition, passage of H.R. 4599, ^e Federal Employees Pay 
Equity Act of 19^4, could provide a gofid vehicle to push the cur- 
rent administration to confront the issue of wage discrimination 
within the Federal sector. 

As the bargaining agent for teachers in the Department of De- 
fense overseas schools, we believe that sections 4 ^nd 5 should be 
amended to show a clear role for the unions in the study phase and 
agency planning phase. ^ 

In conclusion, NEA supports equal pay for work of equal value. 
We believe that traditional jobs which have been considered 
women's work like teaching have been undervalued and paid ac- 
cordingly. 

We further believe that title VII of the Civil Rights Act makes 
pay equity the law of the land. Congressional leadership expressed 
through bills such as H.R. 4599 and 5092 help all of us by ensuring 
that a recalcitrant administration moves" forward on women's 
rights. I 

Thank you very much. 

(The statement of Ms. Futrell follows:] 



ERLC 



4d 



44 



STATCMCNT OFJ^RY HATWOOD FUTRLLL. PRLSIQLNT. NATIONAL 

* 

EQUCATION ASSOCIATION " ' 

Madame Chair; 

My name is Mary Hatwood Futrell. ^\ am president of the 1.7 million 
member National ^ducation Association (NEA), which represents teachers 
education support personnel, and higher education faculty in all fifty 
of these United States. 

NEA IS pleased to have this opportunity today to present our views 

on the Pay Equity Act of 1984^ H.R. 509?, and the Federa K Emp 1 oy^es ' Pay 

Equity Act of 1984, H.R. 4599. Although only a minute percentage of the 

NEA membership is employed in the federal sector, we believe these two 

b^ls have inp&rtant implications 'for our whole membership and for 

working worren everywhere. The NEA pqlicy on pay equity is clean The 

( 

resolution adopted by the 1983 Representative Assembly is attached. It 
states in part : 

"The National Education 
Association believes that all 
workers should be paid on the basis 
of the requi rements , • ski 1 1 s , and 
worth of their jobs and. that factors 
such as the sex or race of the 
individual performing the job should 
never play a role in determining ^ 
salary. ^ 
^ . ^ The Association supports all 

efforts to attain accurate and unbi- ' 
ased forms of job evaluation and to • ^ 
raise the pay of those jobs that are 
presently undervalued. The "market 
value" means of establishing pay 
cannot be the final determinant of 
pay scales, since it itself too 
frequently reflects the sex bias in 
our society," 



* The federal go^rnment has evolved from the New^Deal to the present 
as a vital catalyst in the pursuit of equality for all our citizens. 
However, since^the inception of the Reagan Administration we have seen 
multiple attempts by the executive branch to break the vital contract. 



45 



between the people and their government-'to turn back the clock on many 

. olF \he gains made during the latter par't of this century. 

In the past two decades we iiave seen women entei^ the workforce ^as 

never before we see them now represented to varying degrees in nearly 

all 'sectors, cTnd all job categories. Yet. Madame Chair, despite these ^ 

many gains, women still earn on the average roughly 60 percent of what 

men earn. Women are still" found predominantly in sex segregated, 

low~paying jobs, and we find an increasing number of women and their 

families living in poverty. It is imperative for us to move forward--not 

in reverse as the current Administration would have it--in the fight ifr 

equity in salaries, and along wi-th it'dignity and justice for all 

« 

workers in our economy. 

NEA therefore believes it imperative that Congres.s cc/ntinue to 
blunt the impact of moves by the Administration to renege on the, federal 
commitment to equality. Madame Chair and Members. of the Coimnttee, you 
are to be commended for the leadership you have shown in sponsoring 
these bills, in holding these hearings, and in keeping the issue of wage 
parity at the forefront of public debate. 
Wage Disparities Linger in Education 

Those of us in education well understand the need to continue 
pressing for the close ^of the wage gap. the most persistent 'symptom of 
sexual inequality- in our nation. Among NEA membershi p--70 percent of 
which is females-are school teachers, whose wages are depressed primari- 
ly because teaching has evolved as a "women's" profession; women faculty 
members facing uphill battles to enter higher-paid, tenured positions in 
the nation's colleges and universities; and education support personnel 
who are often stuck in job ghettos, where wage differentials occur more' 



35-003 O -^'84 - 4 



46 



comoij\y because of di f ferpnct-s in job ti ties r,uh(;r than dn> reol 

M 

differences in job respofTsibi Hties. 

Therefore, we know well the n'.eamng of the wage tg^^p which causes 
the average working wonan to fMrn only 60 percent of what male workers 
earn. If is this same wage <)iip which is forcing the increasing number 
of fepale-headed households -^nto poverty--dnd ^ further entrenching the 
^'enale undercKis^. in our society; The statistics bear this out: 



"hree n^r tiyf. working women ^arn SlO,000 or less a yearA 
one out ot thrpf* working women earns less than S7,000 a yeari' 
this inch.'jts, 37 percer»t of white women; 43^pei^cent of black\ 
women; and ^J^ percent of Hispanic women, compared withM2 -. 
. percent ct all fully employed men) ' i, 

* Median fuii-tirp earnings for wom.en with a high .school diploma 

' were Sl?.n? in 1981; ir.er* with the same diploma earned $16,200. 
Only 1 pe>Tpnt of all working won^en earn over S25,000. 

. bingW> wnivhv. r<iif taming tami 1 ies in 1981 had a median income of 
SI0,802; i-^en m th(» sane positu^n had median incomes of $19,771. 

* ^;ight (;u: "pn womer v/orkt^rs are wocking in only 25 of 440 job 
<:r>tegor?ps ,is classif^'O by the Department of Labor. Women ^re 
morn *.han 60 iJfMrt*nt or morp ot clerical, sales, health, and 

^ service w( rker*,; tt^achers and nurses.' 

This wage d i nmi nat i on based on spx and the accorn|jany i ng under- 
. valuing of tf|? jobs held by women hris a profound effect on our whole 
society, A look ^.he teaching profession validates this effect. - 
Teaching: A f _r o J e ;> s i^p_ Se arch of ' P rofessional ' Pay 

In 1982, ^a (j.i'luo Poll showed that the public ranked education as 
its number one priority with, rpgard to federal funding or programs. The 
public also reaf f i r-p.i>o the view that the quality of teachers is one of 
• the top- assets of public schools. In addition, more than half the 
i^respoodent:s in the- Gallup Poll considered poor^ pay the leading cause of/^ 
teacher "burnout"~~no surprise to the 'NEA whose polls show that those 



5/ 



ERIC 



leavincj tPachT.ng for private sector employment report than they earn 
rouyhJy 2b percent more than they did while in the classroom. 

At the san^e time that we are told that education has d hicjh value 
in our society, we find the average salary for a teacher ir 198? was 
$?2,019. Lven in j Ijrgp metropolitan area sucli as Los Aryel es--wi th 
the nation's Record lar«jpst school/di s tr tc t-- tpachers ' beginning wages 
were Sl3,bOO in IV^L "his salary qualified teachor* maintaining 
family ot ff^Sr for food stamps--a fine c(jmmentary on^the real value vse 
plare on education I would say. 

Lo despite •^hp value we supposedly place on "ttie task per- 
formed, there ^s a gap in the real valuf^the society is willing to pay 
for it. People whn arv in life-saving, life-molding "people" jobs, such 
as nursing and teacher, are repeatedly to^d through their paychecks that 
iheir' work is Ifss iniportant than occupations which deal with machines ^ 
or dollars . , • 

Our society must begin to consistently value jobs in terms of th»»ir 
requirements, skills, and re s pons ibi 1 i tics --not in terms of the ger.d(^r, 
•^dce, or physval ability of the person d<^ing it, and clearly, not with 
excuses that this is "|^he marketplace" at work. Valuing work on its- 
skill components- f he "rue urder pinning of fhe moverner-, t for pay equ'- 
ty--will brir^^ about ldst:ing rha7.gf' in thp way we view and vahif^ ^^f- 
contri butions. of workfVs, in our society. 

Educa t io;^ ' Sup po r t_: Not Im mune fr om Unde^va 1 ua ti on 

...'^Across the rrjuntry, pp^^ple working in education support pos'*''^^*, 
in both public school districJ^ts and in universities, are facing sin^'f 

\ 

problems to thosp encountered by personnel in other job classif irfli,'i 



ERIC 



48 



Unfortunately, mast of thorn have no union to help them resolve these pay 
inequities. 

A review of statistics compiled by the. Educdtion Research Service 

Inc. (ERS), in i ts''/' Wages and Salaries Paid Support Personnel 'in Public 

Schools., 1981-82," produces similar conclusions to those uncovered by 

NEA studies on teachers' wages. For hourly employees, ERS statistics 

. . ) 

showed that uistructu^nal teacher aides, most of whom are ^emale, earned 
$4-.88/hQur; cafeteri.a workers, also a predominantly female classifica- 
tion, earned S4. b//hour.. Meanwhile, predominantly male^b classes 
average iwre, wi th .bi, i ] di ng custodians (not engineers) earning 
$5.95/hour, ard school bus drivers averaging $6.26/hour. 
Lot^.y Towel's Not^ Immu ne from E arthl y Pr ob lems 

Wage irienu^fies persist in tho nation's institutions of higher 
ediiCation as weP. Women rrrprise a little more than a quarter of^al^l 
^acuity, tull- and part-t ime , 'in public and private institutions, mostly 
in the lower paid, If^wel^status positions. Women college faculty on the 
v/hole were i^aid nearly 20 percent less than their male colleagues in 
1981. Men on the average earned S26,G0C while women averaged S21,00D. 
Pay EquUy and_ the Equa 1 Ri ghts Anietj^ment 

Despite the political climate which brought' another defeat for the 
Equal Rights Amcrdfr^nt (ERA) *n a vote or* the House floor last fall, the 
NEA believes that the ERA represents the best hope for resolving the 
question of the value of work and its relation to gender in our soci- 
ety--the issue <;f pay equity. Only when women are recognized as full 
and equal partners under the Constitution will their contributions in 
the workplace, in the home, and in society at large be properly valued. 



5j 



ERIC 



49 



"his is why the NEA will continue with all its resources and full 



.conritment to work for passaqe of thp ERA. 



^aj E q u J i ^h t Mu s_t__t o n t i n u e 

These past five years have brought with them a number or advances 
around theVccuntry in the r.ovement for pay equ i ^y in the wor kplace. We 
have seen a>rumber of labor unions, employee associations, and some ./^ 
enlightened enit)loyfrs bring a greater sense of justice into the work- 
place through law Stilts, collective bargaining, management action. 

Yet, we have seen no- leadership to reinforce these actions from the 
i.urrenf Admnistration, la fact, ttreir only actions have been to undo 
wh,u has been <Krompl i shed. Not only has the Equal Employment Oppor- 
tunity Cornssion (FEOC) failed to viqoro'i^sly pursue wage discrimination 
cases, thp Rpagan Adrwiistration Justice Department has shown no leader- 
ship in th^ enforcementX of the laws against wage discrimination. 
Moreover, thp Justice ^partment has acted in a manner contrary to the 
public good in the one^cdse where it had an opportunity to prove that 
its negative image on women's issues is due to "misinterpretation by thp 
media." 

Early this year, without even having entirely reviewed the case 
brought by the American Federation of State, County, 'and Municipal 
Employees (AF5CMF) against the State of Washi^^gton, Justice Department 
lawyers decided to enter the ca,se of the, side of the employers. They 
are urging that the finding that women workers for the State had beer 
discriminated against over the years be overturned. The person charged 
with being^the Justice Department's top civil rights et^f^cer, William 

Bradford Reynolds, publir^y stated in January that although he was still 
reviewing the case, he had decided dpfinitivejy that the judge's deci- 
sion had been wrong. 



50 . 



^-?.^iLrjyjJ/^^'^ • ^^Q^ e Key 

fvof d ^;limpse dt current Aclmui i s tr^ 1 1 nr policy cn irportant wage 
flu:riniif.at ion issues only reinfoixes the need for leddecshiy at the 
'^dtional level -- leader' h whith must coire tor^t^h^^f^ir the lorujress. 
Ff!'..fatior .Hlvr:c.iv»s ^.w^ lejrned tr[ifi5 fhe batrlr- to retain the strength 
ef T)/le ^.he tducation An^endinents of 197/ that a sense of Congress 

<ir be vita! rt^^>n an AdfM r; ] . t r^. . u:n ' s priority is 'tO niove rapidiy into 
*he past ra^^'er than the *iiNire. 

T#e tvvo bills bewH) considered in this h^srmq represent a good 
•3tter})»- heir, reverse the ru^'jliqent stand now beinr; taken by the 
^'cea'jan Adnn n i s f r-j i on on th^se n'atters so vital to our society. 

The "P:iy KjuUy Art (,f '984", H.R. 509?, by reaffirming the federal 
;^ove^^^::ent's responsibility in enforcing present wage discrimination 
laws, represer.r.:. ,i way to hoVj the Administration at least minimally 
accountable- fjn equality in the workplace-i t lets the Sunshine in on 
issues which are hidden from public view. 

in addition, passage of H.-R. 4599, the "Federa Einpl oyees ' Pay 
Equity Act of 1984," (Ould provide a good vehicle to pu'ih the current 
Adnumstration to confront the issue of wage discrimination within the 
federal sector. As the bargaining agent for teachers in the Departnjent 
of Defense Overseas Schools we believe that Sections 4 and 5 should be 
amended to show a- clear role for the Union(s) in the study phase and 
agency planning phase. ^ 

NEA supports equal pay for work of equal value. We believe that ' 
tradition^ jobs which have been considered "women's wovk" have been 
undervalued^l^paid accordingly. We further believe that Title VM of 
the Civil Rights Act makes pay equity the law of the land. Congr&ssion- ■ 
dl Leadership expressed through' bi 1 Is such as HR 4599 and 5092 help all 
of us by assuring thaCd recalcitrant administration moves forward on 
women's rights. 

Thank you. . ^ ■ / 



ERIC 



51 



Ms. Oakak. Thank you very much, Mary. And we will be havinu 
questions for both of you after Mr. Sweeney's testimony. We are 
very happy to have John Swet'ney, who is the president of the 
btM-vice t^niployees International Union. AFL-CIO. "here as well 

John you represent a union with a significant number of 
women. You have been an excellent president. I want to thank you 
and your staff for the support that they gave our staff in making 
us undens^tand the plight of the service employee, a field which is 
domniated by women. 

You can present have your .statement, in whatever way is most 
comfort<|ble. • ^ 

ST.VTK.MKNT OF .JOHN J. SWFFNFV. PRFSIDFNT SFRVFCF 
F.MPIjOVKFS F.NTFRNATrONAL FNION. AFL-CIO 

Mr^ SwKKNKY Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson. I am 
delighted to be here. And after that gracious introduction, I think 
that 1 will ask you to nominate me at our convention next month 

I am John Sweeney president of the Service Employees, Interna- 
tional Union, AH.-CIO. On behalf ofHhe 8;5(),0()() members of SEIU 
1 want to^ank Congresswoman Oakar and all of the members of 
the commitWfor allowing us to reaffirm SEIU's strong commit- 
ment to in.suring that this country's low wage and women workers 
receive equitable pay for the jobs that t'hey perform. 

For SEIU pay equity is a critical necessity affecting virtually all 
of our members. Half of our mi'mbership is .women working in 
health care, clerical jobs.'-building maintenance, and public employ- 
ment, f K J 

Exploitation and discrimination of women in the service indus- 
tries_niean9 depressed wages for all of us in SEIU. \^hen I last tes- 
tified be ore you on this issue, women were earning 5!) cents for 
every dollar earned by men. Today that ngure has increased to Gl 
cents a tiny dent in that giant bulwark of wage discrimination. 

And yet I see a promise of more equitable times aheail ber»u 
of tht' progress made through the tremei*dous leadership of U. 
abor unions on the pay equity issue. CpllectiH bargaining, legish 
tive and political activity, organizing, career development, Ttn^PcIu- 
catton, these are the necessary components of an effective 'plan to 
'"cLn'i^r^''''^ '"'^"'^i^ workers in the public and private sector 

bLlU has actively utilized all of these approaches as described in 
our statement for the record. For example, at the collective-bar- 
gaining table, SEIU Local (t]4, the NAPA Association of Public 
Employees, negotiated a comparable worth committee, and con'- 
ducted.a study without the assistance of a consultant. 

The Vacayille School District iBoard of Education accepted the 
findings of the report, and agreed to finance $251,000 in equity ad- 
justments for some 200 women workers. These salary increases 
were separate from the recently negotiated L')84-85 increases of 7 
percent. 

Yet bargaining is not enough. So SEIU has turned to the state- 
hou*S on pay equity issues. Some 12 Staters have equal pay laws' 
which authorize equal pay for.jpbs of comparable worth. Seventeen 
btates have completed or are in the pf-ocess of doing pay equity job 



ERIC 



evaluation studies thanks to the* Jobbyin^^ on th(^ [)art of* the labor 
unions. 

In Oregon, SKIU's I^ocal nOH representing some IS, ()()() State 
workers suceessfuJIy lobbied the State legislature to pass a bill au- 
thorizing a $:l*)r),{){){) reclassification study and establishing a com- 
parable worth task force to undertake that study. A local oOH staff 
person chairs this committ(^e. 

These SKILI Oregon nu^mbc^rs have a long history ol*d(»aling with 
the pay ecjuity issue. It iiegotiatc^d a number of ecjuity [)rovisions 
for its State clerical units including a Jlat dollar increase which 
^^ave the average clerical worker a greviter increase than other 
State workers; a new classif*ication {\)v word pr()C(^ss()rs with a 10- 
percent increase; and a classification f*or data entry operators and 
telephone operators with f) perciMit increase's. 

Ohio (tov. Richard Celeste issued an executive order which re- 
quires a [)ay e(iuity job evaluation study ol* Ohio's civil service 
system as a result of* lobbying by fltoo, the National Association of 
Office Workers, who presented him with a 2:?,{)(){)-signature peti- 
tion; !)too has joined with SEIU to form a Unicjue organizing effort, 
district 1)25, aime^i at of*f*ering the benefits of trade unionism to the 
nearly 20 million unorganized off*ice workers in this country. 

In addition to bargaining and legislative activity, organizing 
women workers continues to be a high jjriority for our union, and 
an activity directly related to pay ecjuity since organized women 
workers earn a f*ull *M) percent more than unorganized women. 

In our State and local government contracts, women are earning 
71 cents for every dollar.earned by a man. 

Since our last appi^arance bef*ore you, SFAV has af*flliated two 
Iarj|e independent associations representing thousands of women 
workers. The National Association of Government Employees who 
represent some S0,000 Federal and public service woi'kers. Ms, Cyn- 
thia Denton, NACJEs chief counsel, I understand^ will be testifying 
tomorrow, and hopefully will have the opportunity "to describe the 
diff*iculties and frustrations involved in dealing with the EEOC on 
sex-based wage d^scriminationxomplaints. 

Since NA(JE has been trying to resolve a charge of sex dis- 

crimination on behalf of 12,000 State clerical workers. NAGE 
charges that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts since at least 
1948 has created and maintained a classification and salary system 
which has discriminatorily compensated certain positions, because 
they have become identified as female jobs. 

T^e other new a/filiate is the California State Employees Asso- 
ciation which represents some 100,000 State workers, and is like- 
wise active in the pay equity movement. 

But our efforts cannot flourish and cannot end discrimination 
without total and dedicated enforcement of the laws enacted to end 
sex-based wage discrimination. Those of UvS who care about equity 
for workers have been aj^palled by tfce activilyies of the Federal 
iigencies entrusted with enforcing antidiscrimination laws. 

However, the behavior of the EEOC and other executiv^agencies 
is not surprising when one considers the person at the top, and the 
tone that he sets for workers' issues, women's issues, and civil 
rights,. \ 




5^ 

However, President Reagan and his appointees might feel they 
cannot Ignore the law of the land. And title VII of the Civil Rights 
Act and other laws and court decisions could not be clearer Basintr 
wages on the sex of the worker is illegal. 

The Pay Equity Act of 1984, H.R. 5092, and the Federal Pay 
Equity Act of 19H4, H.R. 4599, require action-oriented reports from 
federal agencies that would reaffirti) the Federal Government's re- 
sponsibility to enforce pay equity laws, encourage employers to 
cojiiply with those laws, and bring Federal wage-setting practices 
into compliance with existing law. 

The educational -cxnd informational program for the EEOC called 
for in the bill will be helpful to workers and to both public and pri- 
vate employers. ^ ^ 

We strongly endorse these bills and support the efforts of this 
committee to make these agencies accountable. Anything short of 
total dedication on the part of those agencies to the antidiscrimina- 
tion laws of this country will spell disaster for millions of low-paid 
and women workers. 

o 1^7 r^^'^^ ^^^^^ "^^^^ addressed on many fronts. We in 
bhlU look forward to working with you on the pay equity issue, as 
our union continues to work on other fronts. In organized work 
places, at the bargaining table, and in the statehouses. And yes in 
coalitions with labor and women's groups. 

The battle for pay equity is just one more step in the long history 
ot workers fighting for wage justice. 

SEIU will fight the battle through until economic justice is won 
forall. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Swt^eney follows;] 



ERIC ^ 5j 



54 



STATEMENT OP JOHN J, SWBENKY, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT 
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL ONION, APL-CIO 



I am John J, Sweenoy, President of the Service Employees 
International Union, AFL-CU). 

On behalf of the H 50,000 members of SKIU, I want to thank 
Congresswoman Oakar tor inviting us here today to share some 
recent developments in the struggle for pay equity in which 
my union is an active force. And I welcome the chance to 
reatf irm SKID'S commitment to eliminating sex-based wage 
discr imin.u. ion and ensuring that this country'6 women w^.rkers 
receive equitable pay tor the jobs they perform. 

SEIU had the pleasure of testifying before Cong re s swotna n 
Oakar and her colleagues, Congresswome n Schroeder and Ferraro, 
during the congressional hearings on pay equity in September, 
1982, Those were historic hearings and marked the beginning of 
a flurry of activity on the issue in the workplace, m state 
legislatures and in the media. 

We hope today's forum w ill 1 spur attention and action on 
the pay equity issue, which ve believe is the single most 
important ecf>noinic issue for women workers i rf this ountry. 

^ 

When I testified a year and a fialt ago, i siattMl that SKIli 
saw the battle for pay equity as one more step in the long 
history of workers fighting for wage justice. I am sure, Ms. 
Oakar, that you remembe r the giant post cards SF 1 1) se nt to 
members of Congress publicizing those 198:^ hearings which 
featurecJ dramatic pictures of some of those strugglf^s for 
example--the child labor law, which businesses in Massachusetts 
denounced in 19:^4 as "a |:alamity to our nation.** 



55 



In I , wc* ht?ar t Uv sanu» i rul i ct tnonl s ot pay Ovjij 1 1 y not 
just ^ f<>"^ U.S. tJusiru-,*; 1 t'ule r s- - wh i oh w<» in the Uibi>i inr.vtMncni 
hrtvt' coint- <<) expt'rt--hut t fom ottiruUs witliiri oui > rfiniorj i 
enttustt'd with eiitorcing tho laws winch prohitiit sfx-t^<i.e 1 wc)j«' 
(1 iSi-r im 1 ruit i < ^n. * 



f K'.)r SKKI, pay equity is a ciitical noct»*^sity f ftM:t Ui- j 
virt'j.illy all c>t our mfe-m!)i«tr, betMiist* t hoy work in t hf stMvir* 
sc'Ctor, which* -has long protitted from historic wagt? 





Halt out' uruon membership is women wfJiking in 



healthcare, cU?rical jobs, building maintenance, and public 
empl(>ymern . Kxploitatn>n of women means depressed wa.}e.-> tor all 
of us in SEIU, so we are particularly sensitive to distortions 
perpetra-ted by both employers and the Reagan administration. 

When I last testified before you on this issue, women were 
earning S9 cents for every $1.00 earned by men working full 
time, year round jobs. Today, that figure has increased to 61 
cents — a tiny dent in that giant bulwark of wage discrimination. 
SEIU h as- part ic ipat ed on a number of un ion-maraageme nt committees 
conducting 30b evaluation studies and we have found over and 
over again that the jobs held predominately by women are paid 
substantially less than the jobs held predominately by men. 
Also, we've found that compensation has nothing to do with the 
skill, effort, responsibility, or working conditions of tAe job. 
The reason for this inequity is simply historic, ingrained sex 
d iscriminat ion. * 

And yet I see a promise of more equitable times ahead 
becaiifce of the progress made by unions at the bargaining table 
and in the legislatures on pay equity. 




i 



56 



Collective b^cjcuniny. Legislative and political 
activity. Oryaniziny. ^^^^d^ Development and KcJucation. These 

are the necessary cornponents^t an ettective plan to institute 

f 

pay equity tor all workers in the public and private sector. 



Unions have exercised tremendous leadership un this issue 
but ettorts t;y uruons must :je supported l)y strung laws which are 
entorce<l wh<?n employt;rs fail t o vo Ui nt ar i ly comply with the 
I aw . 

Tho Sorvict' KmpU)yeor> International Ununi haS-^^cvm^t i riueti 
to use a varitMy ot dpproa^«■hes to achievo.pa^ ecjuity. 

Kirst, I'fl liki» to'^ddrt.'ss collective barga i n i nc; , our most 
ettective ano w kU-.-.m'.mI .iciTvity. SKIU uf^es a nuTnber ot 
t).ii .;a 1 n 1 n.j f r-rhrM.-j."; .iiin.- t it. closir».| t ho wa^jo (j<ip hetwf'en ]obH 
held predfjm mat e 1 y by men and jobs he hi predominately by women. 

Si>ecif/irvj a f f (JdIUu increase rather tl-um an across 
the t>f)ard po r n t increase' is ont* sucfi techni(j>ie. In 

prep.ifin.j tot nc-jot lat itxi-i with tfu* Woodland Hills school 
Oistract, SKI'! Lni\i\ SH'j, Pittsf>urgh, which represents the 
classified emp I oyo)";, an.ilyzt-i wages and -found great meguities 
tor women ern^iloyees. 

Local ')>y) ne(j'>tiatod a 7 S-Ce n t -a n-h f)u r raise for each of 
th(? first two years, a fUWlar por-hrjur wage inctf.'ase fnr the 
third ycai , and wliatever money it takes to bring workers up tci 
scale in the tf>urth ye^. Ff>r some of the employees, this moans 
a raise of more than $2.00 per hour. The increase brought the 
most senif)r women up to the earnings level of the men and 
equalized the wage rates within each job. 

Another teclinigue used successfully by Local 585 was 



ERIC 



63 



Li 



.57 

retitllng several job classifications to correct inequities — 
teacher aides became instructional assistants, and library 
clerks became library ass is tan-ts--wi ^h s^ilarie* commensurate 
with skills. 

Carefully conducted job ev'^u^tion studies have been a 
tool in achieving pay equity. SEIU has demanded and on 
agreement to full union participation Ln job evaluation studies 
which have documented wac^e inequ i t ies/and led to equity 
adjustments. SEIU has been care^JTI in requiring that the results 
of any such studies be the subject of collective bargaining. 

\ ' 

Pay equity need not be a con t rove rs i a 1 issue whe n 
employers are willing to accept their social and economic 
responsibilities. 

SKIU Local 614, the NAPA Association of Public Employees, 
negotiaNfvl a comj, arable worth committee and conducted a study 
without the assistance of a consultant. The Vacaville School 
District Board of Education acc'iepted the findings of the report 
aftd agreed to finance $251,000 in equity adjustments f<^r sojne 
20(^ women workers. These salary increases were separate from the 
recently negotiated l98'J-84 increases of 7 percent. 

In the City of Berkeley, California, SKIU I,ocal 390/400 
rpce^u 1 y . con«1uc ted a pay equity study that led to agreement by 
the city tfi Sl.l million ui raises over tfie /lext two and a half 
year*: tor 14 0 c 1 e r i cvs I wot ker *; . 

.» 

T^iufie examples ar».' just a Cripsule versu^n of our 
bart^aining activity and out l)argainin(j tactic*; on this ifisu<'. 
^iF in tuis alr>'> 'lnm,ui<ied ^ind won u(»gra<1^Ml ry lovt'l w.Tq<'*;; Hir 

eliminatior^ ol *iex-bias(Mi jol) titles; the elimination ot the 
♦•mployft pr.-Tctice of cJuwKjing w,iqe (hIm (*riteria f r^in job to job 
or ox()an<l 1 ruj )<>b (jut les without compf'ns.it ion; pr otn b i t i or>s 
agairjst se x-^ i .i*;ed- a s f; ignmp rW of )<U)s or* arbitr'Try ^'nlry 



58 



barriers which discriminate against any one class of work€?rs, 
and the reform of job reclassification procedur^'^. 

Education arul caruoi do vt* lopment are otht?r activities 
essential tor [)romotincj [)ay e<juity. 

Our Liteloncj t'ducation anc) l^evt- lopmi,Til Program { I.KAIM is . 

uruque prograni wtiich st*ts up carotT ladders with a comt>i n-^^t lor^ 

ot oti-tfie- jol) rtiinin.j ari.l in-scfi^>(>l trc)inin<] ft.r work^Ms. Thv 

LEAD program breaks down t ht* barriers which inhibit w<Mnon'r. 

at)ilities to atlvance anii earn more pay. * 

*• 

I 

Education on tfie pay equity issue is crucial to' its 
acceptance by our member sliip and t lu* general public. Without 
unity in our g(>als, we c'annot achic*v<* pay equity--which is just 
what employers want. J^KH) has und^Ttaken educat ional sessions 
aim€*<l at clearinj up the misconceptions male workers harbor 
about ty»e issue and demf>nst rat i ng that pay equity is simple 
justice which will benefit all worKe'rs, 

Yet bargaining and educational activkties are often not 
enough, because employers are all too willing to ignore their 
social respons ibl ity and force workers to resort to the court's 
and outright protest to win their rights, / 

' Thus, St:iU has turned to the statehouses on pay equity 
issues. Some twelve states have equal pay laws whirth authorize* 
equal pay for jobs of comparable worth. Seventeen states have 
completed or are in the" process of doing pay equity job 
evaluation studies thanks to the lobbying on the part of unions. ^ 

In the state of Oregon, SLlU's Local the 0rey6n- 

Public Employees Union, represents 10,000 sLate workers and has 
addressed the pay equity issue on two fronts. The union is 
involved in a coalition active in a discrimination suit against 



BESyO^PV AVAILAOLF 



59 



S 

the Mr.-j. n. S^.u.. Systrm , t Hi.;h».r y\\%-Htum, in this cl.is^ 
action suit, the pUuntifts are woRi^n proU-ssnrs alleging 
. discrimination m h i r i ny , ^lomolion and pay. 



1 rur^'a 
I ncrt' t han 



on the other tront, Local bO i success t u 1 1 y lobt)ied the 
state legislature to pass a bill authorizing a $3S5,OOU 
reclassit icar zon study and estalUishmg a CornpdtaDlo Worth Task 
Korce to undertake the study. A Local SO i staffperson chairs 
V\ 1 s comrn i t ' , " 

Tru'sc* sK 1 1 ■ Orogofi nienibe r s have a l» )n j history ' d ;lt*a liny 
wnh t lie pay trgu i t y issu**. It "riejot l at od a rujmr)t>f »»t efjuity 
pi ov 1 s ijr.s r<'i It:-, ;itat»* clerical uriiis, includm; a flat dollar 
s e w t) I h tj a V e the average clerical w or k e r a g i e a t e i 

>t fiet Stat ^' wfjrkers; a new c lass i t icat ion for wwrd 
pr<^(■^•;;^;' )r s with a 10 pertent increase; and clar.sif icat ions tot 
data f'nt r y opi*rat<^rs and telephone* operators with S percent 
I n r ease s , « 

i)\)it, r,<,VMrnor Hicharil Celeste issued an (executive ()r<1er 
whu■^l r*.'guires a pay e(ju M y job evaluatiori study of fjhio's civil 
servict' sy^,teltl as a ri"Sult ot lot)hyir\g by 9to*j, the National 
Asso<- J at KWi ot ()ttice Wi)rk(^rs, wht) preserite<J him witfi a 2i,()OoJ 
signature pet.it ion. ytoS r>as joined with SPIUI to torm a unp'ue 
«')r jan I I ri.j .*t{ort, Disttirt aimetl at <jtff-ting the tj»Mu»fits 

t)t t r aiU* i.ituonisiM to tfie nearly 20 million unorganizefl ottice 
'W'ukf'is 1 r\ this couritry. 

Shi' 1 oca I unions m Minnesota were active in » he <lr i ve 
wl.i'h r(.'sulted in t hp Minnesota State Kmployeefi Compensation 
Stat.ute, a mody J law with stated definitions of "reasonable 
r*elat lonfdiips" between salaries of different groups. 



Clearly, women w<^)rker^ need power and a voice to overcome 
historijLal discrimination. More and more, women ai 
unions to organize and work collectively. 



a^e turning tn 

/ 



60 



Organizing women wot kt? f s continues to by a high priority 
for SEIU---'and an activity ^iirectly rt.'lated to pay t»f|Uity since 
organ i^etl womt»n workers earn a full 30 percent more than^ 
unorgam z*»,.i womt/n. 

In ou r R t a t o and local goye r nmi' n t contracts, womy n are 
earning 7 1 cent.s tot every 'iollar enrnotJ by a man- -?i t i 1 L a yap 
D^t evi'jenct* that un i t^n i / t mn is na m iw i ng ' the gap. 

And trie federal governntent must work to narrow the wage 
gap for federal workers, as a policy matter and as a model 
employer. h i s t <;r i ca 1 1 y , t ne federal government N.'d the way in 
I he hiring ot wnn'Mi, but un f^^ r t una t e I y has also lei the way in 
tlie inter, ti. rial ;,ayfnt'nt. of d i sc r im i na tory , wages . Realizing the 
example it sets f'^r the test of the nation, tetleral 

/ 

govt' r nine nt jnust provide leadership on t h^ issue. 

\ ^ 

Srt'' firrrly tx'lievr/s that unity is strength. A strong 

organization can bargain if^etter contracts, be a dynar^ic 

/ 

political force, and betj/er serve the diverse needs of its 

members. And in every instance, tinited union action has yielded 

/ 1^ ... 
achievements in pay eqjuity and in eliminating discrimination of 

any kind in the workplace. 

Since our last appearance before you, Ms, Oakar, SEIU has 
N^tfrllated two large independent associations representing 

thousands of wome n wor ke rs . The National Assoc iation of 
Government Kmployees (NA(»K) who represent some R0,()0() federal 
an(J public se r V 1 cewo rke r s . Ms. Cynthia Denton, NACJK's Chief 
Counse 1 , will test i f y tomorrow on ttie act ions they have taken to 
fight for equity for 12,0O0 state clerical workers in 
Massachusetts. The other new affiliate Ms the California State 
Employees Association (CSEA) which represents some 100,000 state 
workers and is likewise active in the pay equity moveme nt . 



/ 6') 



ERIC 



1 



61 



Tfu* dp[)Mia^-lu>s that SKI'i t.,ikt'r, {o [iiciiH t j>,iy LM^uity I h "j t 
I have <1escr 1 ht»il--v'.)l l»»i.*r I vo fga i ii i n.j , coi iu'i lie vi» I opm»» ru 
education, U-g i ^ I 1 1 i vt» arul political activty, .iff*} < t ■ i a n i / i n. j- - 
C(Uin»;l t loiM ish u'ul <"aj hvt. »'fi l lir.ci nnirujt loti with.'vM U.c 
coojitTat mil 1)1 Ui»»-^j'»vcr iiiti'Tit aruJ c n t "i v^'R'c n l <^f the 1 .jw. 
<U'}; I .jnoil lo fful sex-Sa'.fl wa iinuujl i;>rj. 

t N »st' hcarirjj'; W'Hilil it. irk t t.'- I m • ; i n n i rt. ; of i "< ui' ; i »' i • >ii a 1 iiii.l 
toiJr'ral lea r -.r, 1 ; .in»l i au ■ r f i , .ifil r h»- ».■ riv ' >u r i' ;» n t ar)'i 
fnl ( »ff<Mn»/n t of na t i < -.r'..! 1 la.^s l(» assist I h< s*- tig';t i n j t*) irwik^* 
pay cjully <\ i »»a 1 i 5 y ti-t all wwrkt-rs, i c< jti r ■ J U-ss .it tac*-, sex, 
or na t i oua 1 tu i <j ww 

While thi-tf at'» those in t hi- Coth;ti-sj; who i ako t hi- issu(» 

seriously arul i vj* it a hrjh priority likr you, Mv, , (jakai, I 

Cannot say the saitif for otticials in Iht* aOt'i i ru ^. t. r a t i< anil t hi* 

agencif^ charijfi with i h'* » »;spf-ns i h i 1 1 1 y of »»n(f.rcin(j chi<1 

a<lm I n 1 St 0 r I fi'; th Sf pt-liclf^^ wtiich t-nsara- cc;>n""'iv- " ju 1 1 / >nu! 
non^discr im mat ion. 



Those ot us wh<j care abcnjt workers have been appal lf?d by 
t;he activities ot t he r es iden t , the Justice Department, the 
EEOC and t^e U.S, Comm'i ss ion on Civil Rights.^ 



The recent hl»arings on pay equity be fore the Su bcomm i 1 1 ee 
on Manpower and Housing of the Committee on Government 
Operations, chaired by F^arney Krank, documented the^ utter 
disregard of the KKOC and other executive branch agencies for 
Title VII ot the^ Ci^l Rights Act and other laws and executive 
orders which protect the civil rights of working people^ 

The tes t imon;y/of the National Conimittee on P^y Kquity 
February 2H oi this year revealed that some 269 cases alleging 
wage d i sc r i m ma t i on are currently languishing at the FKOC '' 
hoafiqua r te rs , 



ERIC 



35-003 O - B4 



6. 



62 ' 0 



The EKOC defends its lack of investigation of these cases 
by claiming it; ^hasn't developed "policy" on comparable worth 
cas95. They have ignored their own 198^1 90-day notice policy to 
pro/ide interim guidance to field officers in processing Title. 
VII and Equal Pay Act claims of sex-based wage discrimination, 
We find little evidence that th^ EKOC has taken any positive 
^tion since t98i. 

/ 

^' • Tomorrow, our affiliate NAGE will describe the 

I. 

difficulties anci t rust r af it>ns involved in (iealiruj with the Kf-;C)C' 
on sex-based wage discrimination complaints. Siru-e l*^Hl, NAKK 
hdl* tx.»eri trying to resolvf* a chargt' nt svx discrimination on 

/ 

beholf i)t 12,000 state clerical workers; . NACK charges that tht» 
fommonwea 1 1 h at Massachuset t *5 , since at least 1948, has rroated 
and maintained a classification and salary system whiNsh han 
d I scr im I na t or i 1 y c<impon sated certain positions t>t? cause they have 
berom<» identified as "f(;male** jobs. 

<» 

That wage d i scr im i nat itin is illegal could not be clearer. 
Title VII of The^ivil Hights Act of 1964 prohitnts wage 
(list.T iminat ion ^g^i^nst women. In that law, Congrt'ss made it 
clear that it is illegal tui an employer to base wages oo the 
s»'X ot the job hoi (jet wht-re job ret^uire comparable 5ik i 1 1 , 
eltort arv<j t esporis 1 1) i 1 1 1 y . In l^Hl, The fin i ted Stat en Su;jr<.-me 

C*ou r t uphe 1 d t he law i n its dec i s i ori , (;unthe r v. County ot 

\ 

Wash 1 ng I on. 

The behavior of the KKCK', the Justice Department, the 
Department of Labor and the (Hfice of Personnel Management- is 
not suprising when one corisiders the person at the top and the 
tone that he sets for wom(vn's is'sues and civil rights. 



m^' 



• However President Hedgan and his appointees might feel, 
t hey carinot ig nore t he 1 aw fjf the land. It is thus t he 
responsibility of Congi^ess to provide strict oversight of these 
agenc i es to e nsu re enf or ceme nt of these laws in both the private 



63 

ami t he t wlei ,i I set t ot . 

The- |>.iy l:..jitiiy Aft IMH4 (Hl< rfrul t hf K«.-Jfral l\jy 

Kcjuity Act ol ( HH 'rj^^M l oijuire .tc t U)n-< ,r i o rU tnj roi>ui ts 

Jl 

(jovcrnrnf ru ' i rcsporis 1 1> i 1 U y t(i ent(.ro«- pay et^uity laws, 

t'f)c"Ui a.jf employers to cniply with t hoso law^., aruj hr i ruj foderal 

wa.j..' srffin.; p t .» I u»"i ifit<> f« -mp 1 i anio with t'xistin.j law. 

Thw <Mlucal lona 1 arrl i nt («r nut lorui 1 pi Mijr,irn (c.i t he- KKOC 
^■•11^"' 1^' f'lll will t>t. ht'lptul l(. w<'lk».'r^, , an<J lo both 

puM u ,iri(l piivalf ^mp 1 oy »■ i s . 

Wc str )r)';ly L'ruJ(..r s.' I lu'jir .^ills\an(i support t I'tlorts ot 
ton ;rf*sf.w(>fn.jn {;,jkar aru! h.-i (;o 1 I .',■K;ue^; t- tnaKf t h<;s»> a-jj-ncirs 
a<. couril a.M.- . Anythir..; sh..>rt >[ t.-tal ilt^l i t i on <.n f h.- p,trt of 
thi)';«' aijtTu t ■) t.ht- arit I -(J 1 'wt iiri 1 flat 1 laws of this ('(JurUiy 

wall spfll (Jl-. i.t.-r for Jt'illir-ns oi lo^-wan- ari-i wom.-n work('rs. ' 

Thtf piy equity issut- mus;t h»* a«l' 1 r<< s so.! » on mm ny tiorit'i. Tho 
mt/asures call»vl fot to rnak*- tederdl agoncies iTK^r^- at'countahle 
are much needf-.j stops in that process. SKin lotjks forward to ' 
working with Cf^ngrusswoman (jakar on this issuf, as our ufU(Mi 
co'rit 1 ruH's to worK <mi <'llK'r fronts--in unorjanized w< jrkp 1 acei, , at 
I hi- har^jaininj tahle, \\\ th.- st at ••houses and jn coalitions with 
lahf)r ana woman's ginups--to ach u'vo e'conomic justice for all ' 
Amt-r lean w<^rkc-rs. 



4 



ERIC 



• ()4 

Ms. Oakak. Thank you, John/for a fine statement. 

Judy, you know that many women in this country Ijave been con- 
Mused at times by the equal rights amendment. Unfortunately some 
do not realize the impact it would have on the everyday bread-and- 
butter issues that their lives depend upon. 

I am wondering if you can tell us hOw the equal rights amend- 
nlent would make a differenc^^ in the issues of the wages and 
equity? • 

Any of the panel, by the way, can comment on that, if you like, 

Ms. Goi.nsMiTH. 1 think that one thin^^ we have perhaps not 
rpade sufficiently clear, and we will remfty that, to the general 
public is that, the equal rights amendment is not a piece of legisla- 
tion. It is a constitutional principle, and that is, of cou^rse, one of 
the reasons why no single or several pieces of legislation can re- 
place it. ^ 

That wilhout the equal rights amendment in the Constitution, 
the Constitution^ is silent on the question of sex discrimination. So 
that when the laws that are designed to protect -us from discrimi- 
nation are tested in the courts, and come to be tested against the 
fundamental kw of the land; there is nothing there in which to 
anchor a strong decision in support of pay equity, for example, 

Having the equal rights amendment in the (Constitution is going 
to niakev the legislation that we currently have stronger and will 
strengthen the legislation that we manage to pass. But without it, 
it is possible to have confusion in the courts about. No. I, what sex' 
discrimination is? And, No. 2, if there is sex discrimination, wheth- 
er it ^s legal or not? 

If we have the— excuse me, when we have the ERA in the Consti- 
tution, that we will have the necessary fool that we need to win 
economic equity for the women of this country. 

Ms. "Oakak. Mary, do you want to comment on that or can I go 
on to another question for you? 

Ms. FuTKKi.i.. No; you can *go ahead. 
• Ms. Oakak. The majority of individuals in th(» teaching profes- 
sion hclppen to be female. And, of course, we want male teachers to 
be paid fairly as well. 

/ <^ Beit it is true that, as you mentioned, nearly,?!) percent of all the 
teachers happen to be female. Do you think that because there are- 
more women in the occupation, the occupation pays*less? 

Ms. FuTKKi.L. Well, I think that very definitely because it is per- 
ceived to be a woman's profession. Many people feel that since it is 
fi woman's job We do not have to pay teachers a salary which is, I 
would consider, a professional salary. 

And, I think that a lot of people view educators, teachers, espe- 
cially K through Yl as glorified babysitters, and that we are just 
there to handle the kids during the day. They look up()n us as a 
second income or believe vye" work because that is something we 
want^ to do. .\ 

^ And ra^^>st people are very surprised when I indicate to th^ that 
teachers vifork only because; one, they ^^ave selected it as a proTes- 
sion; and, two, we have to work. It is not fa. supplementary kind of 
income for most 5f us. It is an incptne that we need in order to sur- 
vive. ' ^ . 



I very definitely think that the fact that teachin^^ evoiyed into a 
female profession and that is one of the reasons why the salaries 
are so low. Many people are not awaie of the fact that teaching 
started out as a profession for men. And . as we restructured the 
profession and moved further and further away from the local 
school being tjhe hub of the community, and schools becanie more 
cpmji^Jex in our Ktructure; then, women began to become the cUisS- 
room teachers and men began to become the administi*ators. /^^ 

And, if you look at the profession today, the areas wherciAve do 
haVe relatively high salaries, you will not find wonien. / 

If you look at the administrative levels, for instance, youVill not 
find very many* women. If you look at the number of superintend- 
ents across the country. I think less than J pexcent are female. 

If you look at the extracur/icular activities where we pay, at 
least a respectable stipend— I will not^^ay a fair stipend, but a re- 
spectable'stipend — men are in those positions, ^ 

When we look at female coaches, female coaches do not make as 
much money as male coaches. When we look at females who spon- 
sor activities, we do not make as much money as the men who 
sponsor those same activities. And in many cases, we do not earn 
anything for sponsoring activities. 

When we look at the high schools, which is where you have^your 
highest concentration of men. They make more money than the el- 
ementary teachers, which is where you have your highest concen- 
tration of women. 

So, I tMnk that the fact that we are perceived to be a female or a 
woman's profession<hft^ a very key role to play in how much money 
they pay us. ■ 

I think, however, tH^t most people are missing the boat because 
the amount that we pay the individuals in the profession really re- 
flects how we feel about the profession and what we do.^ 

We shape minds. We shape bodies for the future. As a nurse 
would try to keep sonieone well for the future; we shape the minds. 

Ms. Oakar. I agree t'hat so few women »are in the hif^her paying 
positions. It is also true that so few women are in policymaking 
^oleji in the educational system. As a former educator I couldjj^ttest 
to what you just said. There are very few department chiiirpeople, 
very few presidents of colleges, and principals of high schools, who 
are women. . • • 

John, you mentioned a very interesting statistic, which I did not 
know until your testimony. It appears that when women are union- 
ized they are likely to make more for the services they provide in 
their profession. 

What do we do about the women who do not have your union or 
AFSC'ME behind them; who cannot go to court. What are we doing^ 
for those women? , ^ . 

Mr. SwKKNEY. Well, first of all, we are electing people l-^ke your- 
self to sponsor the legislation and chair this kind of a, committee. 

But we are finding within our own union, I think, within the 
labor movement that the greatest organizing success is among 
women workers, and in industries that have been heavily unorga- 
nized. . i \ 

But we as a union, as do all of the (kher unions, that are in-, 
volved, believe that in the progress that we are battling-li^jive are 



()() \ 

bringing bonefit to the unorganized workers as well in various 
ways. And we are more aggressively organizing workers, but we 
are i\\so focusing on how through State legislation we can assist 
those workers who are noi organized. 

Ms. Oakar. Is it fair to say that there are fewer women who are 
part of the union movement than there are men? 

Ms. KuTKKhi.. Well, for the teaching part of the union movement 
of the labor movement, the answer would be, no. Bt^cause of all the 
teachers in the United States of America, I U^lieve something like 
80 to Hf) percent of them are organized and belong to a union. And, 
NKA, of course, represents about 85 percent of those who are orga- 
nized. And, as I said, most of the teachers are women. 

Ms. Oakak. Did you want to respond to that? 

Mr. SwKKNKY. No; I would agree with Mary. Only M percent of 
women workers are organized, but that is the fastest growing area 
of organization. 

Ms. Oakak. Judy, NOW has been criticized for getting involved 
in politics. We also know imi of all the polls taken since the 19r)()'s, 
the two issues that women are most concerned about in Presiden- 
tial politics are peace and economic justice. 

How is the feminization of povertyllffecting the American poli- 
tics? Should we make issues that affect our well-being politiccF" 
issues? - 

Ms. (Joi.DSMiTH. There is a truism that I first became familiar 
witli in the women's inovement, but I think it is generally true, 
and that is that, the personal is political. 

And when I am sometimes asked, why the gender gap is—con- 
cerns itself primarily with peace and econSrnic issues rather than 
Women's Issues;" m^y response* is enviably that, economic issues 
are absolutely women s issues. They are the core of women's issues, 
and they cannot be separated. 

The feminization of poverty is a part of that. It is an appalling 
phenomenon. It is shocking that in this society, the projection^ are 
that if there is no dramatic turnaround, no dramatic change in 
Federal policy, that by the year 2{)(){) which is now not nil that far 
away, the poverty population of this country will consist entirely gf 
women and their* children. That is not healthy f(ir a society. 

One of the re^asons that it is difficult to make progress on this 
issue is because the question that is always asked, when we deal 
with questions of discrimination against women, particularly those 
that have an economic impact, the question is always asked, *'Well, 
if we correct this discrimination, can we afford to do it?" And the 
answer has enviably\been, "No." Whether we are talking about in- 
surance discrimination or any other kind of sex discrimination 
with a pric(* tag on it. 

If it appears that correcting th(* in(*(]uity is going to cost some- 
body money, we cannot do it. Never niind thai the women of this 
rvJntion have been carrying the financial burden^of sex discrimina- 
tion ever since we have had a country. 

At the sam.e time, it is utterly repugnant to think that we must 
balance the economy of this Nation on the backs of women. Yet, it 
is the reality that we keep corning up against all the time. 

Arid one thing that is changing today, and that is changing in 
-politics is that women are beginning to take a central role, be^i- 



()7 

ning to take some control of their owiv poljti^il and economic desti- 
nies and saying, 'The unfair burden that women have assumed all 
of these years is not just, and we are going to do something about 
it." 

> And much of what women have been doing, of course,^has been 
translating that determination into power and the voting booth. 

Ms. Oakah. You know we have an administration that has put a 
multitrillion-dollar price tag on defense over the next few years, I 
question how we can afford trillions of dollars of weapons that 
somehow will Hftd their ways into other countries to kill people, 
but cannot find a way meet the needs, economic needs of our 
own peo'ple. 0' 

Mary, .one last quick question for you. You were talking about 
your attitude toward an administration being an advocate. One 
would expect that they would be an advocate for the law. 

What is your assessment of EEOC's role in enforcing pay equity 
laws? 

Ms. FuTRKM.. Failing grade^:^^ 

You said quick answer. 

Ms. Oakak. Mr. Bosco. 

Mr. Bosco. Thank you. Madam Chair. 

Ihave been following as best I can the FVesidential election, and 
it seems lately labor unions have been accused of being special in- 
terest groups. I know that that is President Reagan's belief, and it 
appears that it is the belief of one of the candidates who was repre- 
sented earlier. 

Yet, from Mr. Sweeney's testimony as repeate^d by our chairwom- 
an, it appears that labor unions have at least increased the pay 
comparability of women by about 11 or 12 percent. 

Would you say, Mr. Sweeney, I imagine you are probably the 
closest we have to one of these special interest labor bosses in front 
of us, would you say tMat 

Mr. Swkf:nky. We are all special. 

Mr. Bosco. Would you say that labor's interest in this problem is 
, special intere^st or general interest? 

Mr. SwKKNKY. Well, I like to think that in the refererices of labor 
unions as special interest, if representing workers and champion- 
ing causes such as we are today, means that we are interested in a 
special interest; then, I think that it is a great credit to us. 

The low-paid workers and women workers deserve a little special 
attention, and the needs of our times warrant as aggressive a pro- 
• gram as we can possibly put fortli. 

But, I firmly believe that in representing our membership, we 
are also fighting for those folks who have nobody else^^o figlit for 
them. And the battle for pay equity is the same battle Tor the mini- 
mum wa>(e or for the public school system or whatever it might 
have been tffrough the history of the labor movement. 

And, I hope that whatever we can achieve that many of the 
people who have nobody to fight for them are the beneficiaries. 

Mr. Bosco. So you would probably refute those who are saying 
today that labor is an anachronism and the bosses are all sitting in 
the back rooms. It appears to me that you are wqrking very hard 
for issues that apparently are very important to people. 



Ms. Futrell, you are, I guess, pne of these bosses, too, do you feel 
the same way? ^ 

Ms. P'uTRKLL. Yes. I have never had anyone to refer to me that 
way before, but I like to wear that hat. 

I think children are special. I have dedicated my life for the goal 
of trying to help children. And, if the National F]ducation Associa- 
. tion is accused of being a special interest group because we want to 
support candidates who believe in children, and are willing to place 
. themselves on the line to stand up and to spe^k out to advocate for 
children; then, I think that that is a very worthy cause, and 1 am 
very glad that we are involvi?d in politics, and that we are consid^ 
ered to be a special interest group. 

I also believe that teachers are very special. I believe that we 
have contributed mightily to the greatness of this country. 

'And as I tt^avel around talking to teachers all over the United 
States, and I do that all the time, I am very proud of what teachers 
are trying to do. And, I have no doubt that teachers will continue 
to do everything they can to make this country great. 

In return, we need support. We need support from the local level, 
/ the State level, and we certainly need support from Congress and 
from the White House. 

And, so, if people think that we are special, because we say that 
we need to support candidates who believe in teachers and believe 
in children; then, I have no probfem about that. 

I always think it is interesting, though, Mr. Bosco, that people do 
not talk about the special interest groups which support the cur- 
rent administration. I think that it is very interesting that no one 
ever talks about the fact that he too seeks out special groups to 
support him. And, so, if it is not wrong for the goose, it certainly 
should not be wrong for the gander. 

Mr. Bosco. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Oakar. Thank you. 

Mr. Iloyer. 

Mr. HoYKK. Thank you. Madam Chair. ^ 
r would agree with the response of each of our parhelists and with 
the commonality of their interests, which are very special, and 
ought to be very special to this committee. I applaud the state- 
ments. - 

I do not have a question, but 4 did want to follow up on Judy 
Goldsmith's statement. 

I think that the economic issue with respect to this particular 
proposal is outrageous. And, although, no one has mentioned it 
toda^, it is the same argument that was heard repeatedly in the ' 
1850 s. It was then said that the reason slavery had to be main- 
tained was because the economic system in this country demanded 
it. It was an outrageous argument then; was rejected through the 
shedding abroad on both sides. That will not be the case, hopefully 
and clearly, this time. But it ought to be rejected as emphatically, 
as strongly and with as much courage as the three of you have 
shown, as the Willmar Eight showed; and as much as this issue de- 
mands.. 

Mrs. Goldsmith, Mr. Sweeney, and Ms. Futrell are all correct in 
saying that this is a very, very special interest that we ought to all 
share. 

ERIC 7j • . 



09 



Thank you. Madam Chair. 

Ms. Oakak.. Well, we want to thank you v(M-y much for a|^i)earinK 
today, and let us continue in our struKK'^'. to achieve economic 
equity for all people in this country. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. FuTKKLL. Thank you.'' 

Mr. SwKKNKY. Thank you. 

Ms. Oakak. The ('hair wants to thank those who are waiting- 
We know that it has been a lon^ day, hut we have such excellent 
witnessen. We value <*ach (if you e(iually. 

And our next panel will consist of, Ms. Nancy Reder who is the 
chair of an organisation that has done tremendous work on this 
issue, the National Committee on Pay Equity, and Dr. Quincalee 
Brown who is the executive dirbctor of an organization that I 
happen to belong to, the American Association of ttie University oi ' 
Women. 

We are very ha[)py to have you. 

Nancy, if you would like to proceed .whatever way is comfortable 
for you. 

STATKMKNT OF NAN( Y KFDKK, ( IIAIK,Cs'ATI()NAL COMMirFKK 

ON PAY K(irn Y 

. Ms. Rkdkk. Thank you, Congresswoman Oakar and members of 
the subcommittee. 

I'l^am Nancy Reder. I am the -^director of Social Policy for the 
Legal Women Voters Educat^ion Fund, and I chair the National 
ComVnittee on Pay Equity, - ^ 

Wi\;h me today is Claudia Withers, staff attorney am7e Women's 
Legaf Defense Fund. Women's Legal Defense Fund also serves on 
the B(^ard of the National Committee, and it chairs its subconmiit- 
tee on \Ep]OC enforcement. ^ 

The National I'ommittee on Pay Equity is a coalition -of over 150 
organizations and individuals formed to advocate for pay equity for 
working women. Our membership includes international unions, 
major women's and civil rights organizations, legal and profession- 
al associations. State and local governments, and individual work- 
ing men \and women. An^ I might add that most of the organiza- 
tions testifying before these hearings are m'embers of the National* 
Committee. 

• Needless to say, as>Ahe only national coalition working on the 
issue of pay equity, we haveva particular interest in th^ubject 
matter of these hearings. riecauW the approval process of our coali- * 
tion, and we arfe a coalition, is rather ^a lengthy and cumbersome \ 
one, the National ("ommitt^e has not yet endorsed-aay of the legis- 
lative proposal.^ which are presently pending hr^ongress. However, 
we thank you fbr bringing to national atteation this issue, and we 
welcome the Opportunity to share our concerns with you. 

We are particularly concerned about the lack of Federal enforce- 
ment ofnhe law that is already in existence, something that your 
legislation is designed to remediate. And our testirtiony will focus 
on this particqlar lack of enforcement. 

ctivities which the National Committee has been in- 
b^^en the monitoring of EEOC enforcement in the 



One of the k. 
volved in has 



ERIC ^^ 7^. 



70 



ar^?a of wage discrimination. We have met with EEOC officials to 
find out what they are doing in this area. And when information 
that we asked for was not forthcoming, we had to <ale a Freedom of 
Information Act to get that information, some oPWhich we still 
have not gotten I might add. 

Ms. Dakar. What is it that you have not yet receive? Would you 
ri^peat that? 

' Ms. Rkdkk. Well, we filed a Freedom of Information Act request- 
ihg information about the cases that ai'e pending in headquarters 
that EEOC has not acted on. We asked for specific informatiun re- 
garding those cases, and the typl* of cases that they were, and we 
asked for the charges that have been filed, and we have not gotten 
sptM:-irically all the information. We are still working with them 
and hope to get the rest soon, 

Ms. Oakar. Well, let us hope that they can respond to your wish 
in a very quick fashion. 

Ms. Kkdkr. I think they are having a hard time sorting out the 
information that tbev^ave sitting there. I think that is one of the 
problems. And that improbably why we have not. gotten it. ' • 

Many of our membei's have also filed charges of wage discrimina- 
tion with EEO(', and they have pendf^g wage discrimination law- 
suits. I might add that one of our members tried to 'file a complaint 
and walked into the Chicago office aira was told that EEOC had no 
policy on sex-based wage discriminatix)n. And we had to give our 
member a copy of the 90 day notice that is currently in effect, so' 
that they could then hand it to the staff person there and say, 
■This is EEOC's policy." 

So, I think it is clear that the field does not j^now"* about the 
policy that is supposed to be in effect and being enforced. 

The wrige gap between women and men is one of the oldest and 
most persistent symptoms of sexual and inequality of this country, 
and I ^ill not take the time to repeat the statistics that have al- 
ready been stated by those people who haye testified before me. 

However, I would like to cite some of the results of job evalua- 
tion studies that have documented wage inequities between female 
dominated and male dominated jobs. 

In the State of Minnesota, which did a job evaluation sturdy, they 
determined that a registerec^ nj|jg^e, which is a female-dominated 
job and a vocattonal education Wiher, which is a male-dominated 
job, were evaluated as having fhJb same number of points, 
However, the male-dopiinated jobAvas paid -a Tnonthiy salary of ap- 
prexiTn^<e|^$2,2()(), while the female-dominated job received a 
monthly ^lary of approximately $1,700. And that is ro|ghly a $500 
a month diVrepancy. ft , 

In the State of Washington, a registered nurse, a^^a)e-domi- 
. Tiated job, received over 300 points <:ompared to a hi^v^y engi- 
neer, which was a male-dominated job, and yet the highway engi- 
neer job paid over $000 a month more. 

• ^All the job ^valuation studies that have been done to focus on 
wage inequities continue to point out that there is at least a mini- 
mum of 20 percent discrepancy between male-dominated and 
female-dominated jobs that are evaluated as being comparable. 

A legal mechanism for directly challenging this situation does 
exist. In 1981, the^Supreme Court issued its decision in Gunther v. 



71 ' 

Jou/i^' of Wdshui^ton. (hmthcr hold that waKO' discriminat i()ru3 
, against women who hold jobs which may not bo substantially equal 
' ' to those hrfd by men may be barred by title VII of the Civil Rights 
Act, 

The Supreme (\)urt did not, however, indicate^ how sucfvTcases 
were to be developed and proved. And the issue is thus ript^for the 
development of case law, something that we look to the Federal 
(Jovernment- particularly K1<X)(^ and the Justic(^ Department— to 
test the ramifications and the limits of that law, something that 
they have not done. 

The comments that Brad Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General 
for (^ivil Rights, has made regarding the Washington State case 
have already been repeated. 

Hut with respect to P:E()(?, it has afcways recognized that wage 
discrimination is a violation of title Vlh It participated as'amicuji \ 
in the Crunther case and in a case that was litigated about the same 
time, lUK Wet^Hnghuuse, And even before (hinlhcr. the EEOC". 
commissioned the landmark study that was done by the National 
Academy of Sciences and held hearings. Both of these things could 
provide a sound basis upon which the Commission could rely in in- 
vestigating charges of wage .discrimination that are pending, but 
. the Commission has largely Ignored the findings of iy/own study. 

The only positive enforcement action that EIEOC haiv taken is to 
issue a f)()-day notice that was issued in-the wake of the Gunlher 
decision. Its pur:^)^ is to provide interim guidance in processing 
title VII and Equal Pay Act claims of sex-based wage discrimina- 
tion, , \. r 

That notice has been renewi^d regularly since its original promul- 
gation. In fact, Congressman. BtirneyJP rank Referred to- that as the 
9()0-day notice in the hearings that he held a couple of weeks ago. 
because it is going on and on without EEOC taking any final action 
on it. 

We do understand that EEOC may adopt a final policy in May. 

Under the 9()-day notice most charges and accompanying files 
arecto be sent to headquarters before a cause finding is made. And 
we know this is nc^ happening, and many charges are simply being 
dismissed for no cause or they are not being investigated. 

If the charges are forwarded' to headouarters, they are sitting in 
hmbo'. There are over 2r)() cases that*hre currently being ware- 
housed there. 

EEOC persists in defining comparable worth as some strange 
theory under which most claims that do not involve equal pay for 
• equal work fall. This kind of an analysis ignores the Supreme 
Court s decision in Gunthen 

We believe that most wage discrimination cases easily fit within 
the confines of title VII framework. 

And what we can review from the information that EEOC has 
given to us is that— their litigation of wage discrimination cases . 
since Gunther is virtually nonexistent. There is no organized— no 
considered effort to identify and bring wage discrimination cases. 
There is no litigation strategy. There is not even a central coordi- 
nator who can identify the existing cases. 

ER?C - . ;., ^ 



12 



Based on the above, the national committee* believes that EEOC s 
enforcement efforts can best be dc^scribed as inconsistent, ineffec- 
tive and totally lacking in any initiative. 

At recent hearings before Congressman Fiank, Clarence Thomas, 
who is the Chair of the EFX)(\ announced the formation of a study 
group which will work on a policy for comparable worth cases.' 

While we are delighted to see that EEOC' may be taking some 
notice of this issue, we are not convinced that they nc^ed a new 
policy to handle these types of cases; that if they simply address 
them as they do other cases that are pending, we might see some 
action. 

Ms. Oakak. You might want to know that Mr. Thomas came 
before myself and several other C'ongresswomen 2 yc^ars ago and 
told us the same thing. He said that EEOC was going to take a bold 
stand on bringing these cases to some kind of fruition. It has been 
2 years and we are still waiting for the results of that momentum, 
Ms. Rkokk. It is like waiting fona godot. 

Ms. Oakak. That is right. Th^ter of the absurd is a good, accu- 
rate description of what is occurring, 

. Ms, Kkdkk. Well, we sincerely hope that the comments that C'lar- 
ence Thomas made are not cosmetic and that EEOC w'ill begin to 
investigate the cases that are sitting there. 

Wo feel that if the ('ommission is truly 'committed to ending sex- 
based wage discrirtnination, then, we should see some positive re- 
sults soon And we will be watching and waiting. 
[The statement of Mh>. Reder follows:] 

4 

^ Statkmknt ok Nancy Rkdkk 

Thniik you. ConKrcsswomMii Oakar and nicnihcrs of I he SubcomniiUec My name 
I is Nancy Reder. and I ani Chair of the National Committee on Kquity iNCf^Ki. 
, With ine is Claudia Withers. StafT Attorney at the Women's U'^'al Defense Fund, 
which .serves on the IJoard of the NCPK and chairs its subconhnittee on the KK()(*. 

The National Committee on I^ay K(juity is a coahtion of over l.')0 or^'ani/ations 
and individuals formed to advocate for pay equity for wor king women. Our member- 
\ >^bip ij^ludes international nni(His, major women's and civil ri^'ht.s or^'ani/ations, 
\. le^al Ifnd professional associatjons. state and local K^vernnients. and individual 
workinj^ men and women. ^ 

\As Jhe only national coalition wf)rk'inj.j on the issua of pay e(|uity. we are particu- 
larly jnleresled in the subject of this hearing'. While NCPK has not endorsed any of 
the lej^islative proposals which are presently pending, we welcome the oi)ixJrt unity 
to share our coiKcrns with this subcommittee. We are particularly concerneiabout 
i'he lack of f('deral enforCemcmt of thv law already in existence. 
, One ol the many activities in which N(TK has been involved lias been the moni- 
toruig of HKOC enforcement in the area of wa^c discrimination. We have met with 
KK(X* officials in order to find out what was bein^ done in this area When, in thf* 
"7nll or V.m, informat ion wo asked for was not forthcoming^, we filed a Freedom of 
^ Infornvtition Act recjuest. We have critiqued the agency's policy d(Kum(Mits and sub- 
milted \estimoiiy at relevant ('ongessional hearings. W(^ have 'developed a series of 
recommmidations for the FKOC to use in its enforcement Activifes relativ(» to wage 
discrifninvUioii. Many of our members have 111(^1 cbiirges of wage discrimination 
with the KKOC and have pending wage discrimination lawsuits. We. (ht^refore. wel- 
come thi.s p{)[K)itunity to share our experience cont^erning the status of the efforts of 
the fedc^ral enf/)rceinent agencies, especially of the Kqual Fmployment ()i)portunity 
( 'ommissioAK to (»nforce theJnws that i)rohibit wage discrimihation on the basi.s of 
sex. Oice. ci^lor. n^ligion. or%itionaI orgin. 

THK PR()BI;KM OK WA(;K niS(i<IMIN AT^^ 

The wagelgap betwe(»n women and m(M\ is one of he oim'St and most p(»rsisteg^ 
symptoms oft sexual inequality in this country. Women i)erform many of the most . 



/ 



inipojlarU johs in our economy. They leach our children^ they are the primary pro- 
viders oF health care in hospitals and nursing homes; they are the mainstay of the 
financral and business office world Yet, on the average, women who work full time 
year round are paid approximately $J)1 for every dollar pnid to men.' The wage ^'ap 
biromes even wider for women of color, who bear the double burden of drscrimrna- 
tion based on sex and race or notional origin BlackJ^omen enrn $.')() for every 
dollar earned by men, while His[)anic women earn $iP2 for every dollar earned bv 
rnen>' . ' 

A majority, frfly-lwo |x*rcent. of all employed women work in tvyo of the twelve 
major occupations: clerical wurk(»rs and service workers (other ih^an pri>?ale house- 
hold workers). In more than half of all employed women worked in occupa- 
lion^i that are fenude. and 22^y of eniplj^yed women worked in occupations that 
are more than female. Fo^* back womeri, occupational Hegi^egalion is even more 
extreme, the concentration of black women in clerical and service worker occupa- 
tions rs .>U Y ; black women are more likely to beMbund in .service {2\).H%Yor blue 
collar jobs U7.2'y ► than are white women M!).()''i and 12.8^/ 1: black women are less 
likely to hold white collar jobs (clerical, sales, professional, managerial) than are 
white women 

Occupational segregation carries with it the , penalty o1' lower wages. Compare the 
(Allowing predominantly male and (eniale ^s: 

COMPARISONS OF WORTH AND SAURY OF SELECTED JOBS ' 

jq^ I, IIP Monthly Numbe/ ol 

salary , ■ w\s ^ 

Mtnnesotj 

Vac<iliondl education teacher (f) . 2.260 < 2/5 

Health proRram Rep (h » . 1,590 238 

Steam boiler attendant (M) . ^ 1.6 LI 1% 

■ Data processing coor(1inr^f (f) . . 1 423 199 

General repair work (M)' . • 1^564 134 
San lo^e Calif 

librarian I (f) . - 75O 288 

Street sweeper operator (M) /58 124 

^ Senior legal secretary (f) . ' 665 226 

Senior carpenter (M) . . 1 040 226 

Senior accounting clerk (F) . 638 2lO> 

Senior painter (M) .. . 1,040 210 
Washington 

Registered nur^e (f) - . ij68 348 

^ MiRhway engineer III (M) J.98(L !05 

Laundry worker (f) .884 105 

Truck driver (M) . 1.493 9/ 

Secretary (F) . .. ' 1.12? J97 

Maintenance carpenter (M) l./O/ , 19/ 



' Hav Associalp^. St^le ol Minnesota Rept. " Mdfch 198?. Hay Associate. Dty ol San lose Study ol Non Managemeni Classes" November 
\^ ym St.itp of Washington Study. " Public Pefsonnel Management lournal. Winler 1981/82 

' Ifi^v number of potnis retefs to the rating m )ob evaluation studies descntied m the publications Cited m n 3. supra Job evalualtons 
geyraiiy measure the skill, effort, responsibility, and wofkmg conditions m a 10b 

k U'Kiil nu'chanism for directly challenging this appalling situation ^)es exi.^t. In 
June H)HK the SuV)reme C'ourl issued il.s decisionf^n Gunther v, County of Washing- 
ton, (hint her holds that wage discrimination against women who hold jobs* which 
may not hv substantially equal to those held by men may be barred by Title VII of 
^ the Civil Rights Act of 19(54. The Supreme ('ourt did mot, however, indicate how 
^'♦>HUch cases were to be developed and proved. The issue is thus ripe for the develop- 
^ rhent of case law, much as the doctri-ne of disparate impact was developed when the 
Supreme Coort h(?ld in (in^s v,- Duke Pouter in 1971 that Title VII oould be violated 
by the use ot a facia Hy neutr^i^ enipl(3y merit test which nonetheless served to ex- 
%cluda blacks from jobs. Hut neithen^the nor the Department of JLystice. has , 



JUS puroHU rt/ thf C'f^nsus. Current !V)pulHtion KeiK)rts ^ 

^ /fl. H'reakdownH fo/ .As^nn/f^acific and Native American wonien are not available, and have 
not Ix'en included for IhaT reason * 



ERIC 



74 



taken the <)pp/)rtunity Instead, tlieir etTorts have been rnarked hy reluctance at 
best, and outright hostility to the notion at \vo]\l. 

THK nKPAKTMh'NT OK JliSTK'K 

Ik»cause of a recent statement made hy VVilliani I^radldrd Reynolds, the Assistant 
Attorney (ieneral foriCivil Rights, on this topic, we are conijj^lled to address the 
role of the Department of Justice before turning to the KKOC 'I'he I)epartnient ol 
'Justice has failed completely to take any stefxs to enforce thv law against wage* dis- 
crimination. To the contrary, it has actt'd in a conipletely irresponsible* way in the 
one case jn which it has had any opportunity to act at all Without completely re*- 
viewing the record in the ce'h'brated case o{' AFSiWIK \. Stafv of Wdshin^titn, Jus- 
tice Departnu'nt lawyers have jvlreNidy- decided to ente'r the case on -the* side* of the 
employer, to urge that the llnding that women woike'rs had be'en discriminated 
against in Avage*s he ove»rtu\ru'd. 

In a .W'W York Tinics article' of January 22.. VM{. Mr He'ynold^r-v^is (^uote'd as 
saying^ that he was still re'v^iewing the case' but bad conclude'd that the Ju.^tice' I)e 
partment should support t]i^' State* of Washington in an appe'al cbalh'nging Judge 
TaniH'r's orde'r. ReyiK^lds aciually stated that: "I have absolutely fio dc^ubt that his 
(Judge Tanner's] decision is wrong." In a dialer .mee'tini,' wUh NC'I^K and otlu'r pay 
equity advocate's, Mr Re'^nolds again acknowledge'd that he' had not completed his 
review^ of the case, Me' reiuse'd, however, to disavow the' stateme'nt made to the Nvw 
York 7'inn\s: * ■ • .. 

Mr Re'ynolds' actions display a blatant disre'gatTl for Ins obligation as the nation's - 
chie'f civil rights e'n forcer to enforce' the* la>v..Tbe Supre'ine Cour t has already state'd 
in ihaitlwr that Title V^ll can be» violated where' female jobs are' not e'yual to inak;„ 
jol^s. Judge' Tanner in AFSi'\(tl \<'ai7 sinipky fallowing ((Unfhrr as (,'hair Thohias of 
the KKrtC |ias alre'ady acknowledged Th^' I)(»partni(Mit of Justice is again talking 
about the law as it wishes It to be ratlu'r than as it is ' . ' * ' 

. . ■ 4. 

. . KKOe' ACTKJN , ,^ 

The* Kh!0(' has always r(K*ogni/e'd that wage discrimination is a Title' VH viola- 
tion, ()ve*r {He past ye'ars. ihc Commission has found liability for wage discrimina- 
tion on the* basis o^ sex or race' in a numbe'r of cases. It' participate^d '^i^j^ a^i/{7/6' in 
(ijinthvr and /(/A* v. Wvstirif^houst'.'* taking tlie position tha Title VII applie\s to sex 
based wage discrimination, .and that noihing in its Umgu^ge* or legislative' histpry 
would Je'ad"lo the' conclusion that its protections should be limited ordy to situations 
which constitute a violation^jl the'Kqual Fay Act . ■ , , 

Kve*n heforcv ilunthvr, the KKOC comrTxissioned a study by the NSui^pnal Acadt'tny, 
of Scie'nce's to dele'rniine both the manner in v^^hich Con ve'ntional wage setting, prat,^ * 
(kevs operate to discriminate' against wonu'n and the* fcafiibihWy tjT Vre'at ing biatf' fre'C ^ 
wage setting mechanisms The results of that study, publisbr'd ijji -tht^ fall 6i ADHl,-^ ' 
shortly rd'le'r I lie (iunthcr de'cision. docunu'ht the extent of wage disrciminati(^j and 
provide.' guidahce' lor evaluating sex bih?; irf job evaluatie)n systems They c^yuFd (jJ'o- 
" vide a sound basis ujkmi which the ( oiriinission could re'ly in i-nvestij^ating .f^^orne* 
charge's. of wage discrimination. To dat^. hoyve'ver, the' Commission has l^geiy ig , 
nored the findings of the' study. - . < 

Similarly, tlte (!onirnission held a serie's of he'arings on wiige (]iscriminati{)n and 
job segre'gation in the^ spring of Tbe'se bearings provid?' a^wealt-li'of in forma 

lion for (JJI Commission to utili/e* '\u processing individual charges and de'Ve'loping 
sysle'initi (argels for inve'stigat ion and litigation. Again, hejwe'ver. the C'ommission 
has merely publishe^d the transcripts of the'se' he'arings; it lias taken no action to 
date i^n the form of, issuing findings fro^n the hearings or. implementing any new 
iniliativ(^^j(itfed on the' hearings or the WAS study - 

Indeed.tbe' only [K^sitive' e'liforce'nu'^it act-ion wh'icli the Comnussiorv^hci^ taken in 
the wfikaof (tunthi'r was the' issuancj', on Septe'mber l?). J!)iil. of a DO.'dny notice te) 
"provide inte'rim guidance in pr()cessing Title VMJ and Kcpriil Pay Act claims of sex- 
ba.sec^ wage discrinnniltion." That notice has been renewed regularly since its (jrigi- 

Mn/Z/Kv Wr.'</»>i/,'//o//.sr, V 2i\ '2:rKri)Para i;U, OMiA i.'tcd (*ir VMh, wrt thniM. WW 
S Cl 2\\ KPD!n:n, HJM) (IfWU, the rourt found that. ev('I^lil^)llKJl thejoh rhtssincalions were 
not sul>HlantialKv r(jijal. frniales \\\ u prcdonnnant ly fpfnalc cjn.ssif Uatiori couici still <;om[)arr 
their wage's to wages paid to rnales a predonnnantly male L'hissiruali()n The prnploVcr had 
UHcd a job evftluation sysleni to dctcrrniiio tfie relative worth of johs at il.s faciliticH Kven • 
though male and fcfiiale job claRsificationH received the s/irne rating, wage rales for pre 

dominanlly feniaW j(>b classincations were de-liberalely soMower than wage rales for [)redoini- 
nantly rn|pi^j()b cluswincalions. 

^ 7j 



ERIC 



nal proinulgalioii, and ihus rcprcsctUs Ihc^J^Hlity lo which ihf KKOC has coniniillod 
itself with respccl lo processing wage disj/^iminalion claims. 

Indeed, even I he direction provided on the !)()-day notice is not being carried out. 
According to the notice, charges are to he investigated throughly. Investigators are 
particularly instructed to st'ek out evidence concerning: 

<i) A bre^ikdown of the employer's work force by sex in terms of job classifica- 
tions, assignments, and duties: 

(2) Written detailed job descriptions and. where a|)[)rop)riate. information gathered 
from an onsite inspection and interviews in which actual jol) duties are described; 

I'i) Wage schedules broken down in terals of sex showing job classifications, as- 
signments, and duties; 

(A) Any documetits which show the history of the emj)loyer*s wage schedules such 
^ as collective bargaining agreements which were pr("viously in effect; 
S if)) All employer justification of. or defenses to. the sex based wage disparity; 
' Hi) If a job evaluation system is the basis for the sex based wage dis[)arity. . . . 
copies of" the evaluation and, if available, an analysis of its purpose tind operation; 

i7) If market wage rate is th(" basis for the sex based wage* disparity. .\ . the un- 
-derlying factors relied upon by the employer and the methods the employer used to 
determine the market wage rate; 

(S) If union collective bargaining agreements are the basis for the sex based wage 
disparity. . . . copies of those agreements; and 

-liH Any evidence which shows that the employer or the employer and the union 
have t'^rtablished and maintained sex segre^Jited job categories. 

Most Aarges^and accompanying files are to be sent to Headquarters before a 
cause finding is made. Yet. we know that this is not happening in the field. In the 
field, charges are being dismissed for no cause, or arc; sirnply not being investigated. 
For example, one potential charging party attempted to file a wage discrimination 
charge in the Chicago district office. 6nly to be told ^hat the office had no policy for 
b^mdling that kirtd o1 case. We providjt^d a copy of tbe IKI-day. notice to the individual 
so that she could «hjOW it to the investigator in Chicago 

If cht.irges are fbrward("d to H^dtjuarters. ij>;*fTpears that no action is taken; they 
remain in iim\)o. An August 1^X2 internal KKOC memorandum listed 2'M such 
charges. Tbe latest internal memorandum lists 212 such charges which are lan- 
guishing in Headt}Uarters. 

The KKOr apparently defends its lack of serious att("ntion to investigating wage 
discrimination on the ground that it has not develo[)ed "policy" on the subject. 
Indeed, we liave seen copies of draft memoranda circulating within the agency 
which make this argument,' and which attempt to create such policy 

These memoranda p>ersist in defining comparable worth as some strange theory 
under which fall most claims that do not involve equal pay for equal work. Such an 
analysis ignores the Supreme Court's holding in (iunihvr Most wage discrimination 
claims easily fit within the confines of Title VII's framewori^gMany can be proved 
under a disparate treatment analysis, in which it may |)erhaps be shown that an 
em[)loyer intentionally set wage rates lower f»r female employees. Such evidence of 
intent may be shown by direct evidence, for examp)le. that an emj)loyer satd that a 
woman s job classification is paid l("ss than a man s because women "don't supf)orl 
families. '\or that an -employer using a job evaluation system knowingly paid fe- 
males less even in jol)s rated the same as. or more than, male jobs; or it may be 
inferred from other circumsiances of differences in treatment of male and female 
employees such as occupational segregation by sex. The Commissioh does not. theter 
fore, need new'policy to move foma^ on these kinds of cases. We submit that, al- 
though wage discrimination is a nou-ClUF issue, the Commission decisions finding 
liability which already exist and the nO-day notice serve as excellent starting poinlis 
for investigation and litigatioiv. ^ 

The ostensible lack of KKOC policy is merely an excuse io't not [)rocessing wage 
discriminatiort charges. The KI*X)C has a policy, the M)HI !)0-dav notice. It should use 

il. _ .. ' 

Moreover, not only hjis the Commission failed to act. but it has allowed the !)e- 
|)artment of Justice effectively to make |)olicy in the ar^a. by its statements regard- 
ing AFCSME v Stair of Wa^hin^tan. This is outrageous We call on the EK()C lo 
insist that the Department of Justice follow its policy, and file an aniuus brief or 
intervene on behalf of the [)laintiffs in the case. 

Ciiven ihe^^e problems [)reventing investi^ion of wage discriminat iou^asefj. it is 
not surprising that the Commission has filed very few, if any. lawsuitsifiyolving 
wage discrimination (That is. wage discriminat ion cUiirns thal do not inv|>K(""]f*quul^ 
\my for equal work ) According to the infoiinalion that the NCPK re(*ei\y^ in settle- 
mt*nt of its VOIA recjuest. )n cases categbri/ed as involving Title VII wage .diserimi* 



nation in sonio Ibrni werv fXMiding in litigation as of August, \\)X2, or were filed 
after August. lOS^/-^ Of these, the ( oniniission was ahle to find and provide copies of 
10 coni{)laints We have been able to identify only three of these cases lhat.iippear 
to uivolve more than simply equal pay for equal work. 

Of thojH* three, none were filed by the present Adniinislralioiv Two were filed in 
1071) or before, and are primarily . challenges to sex-segregated job chissifications 
dating from Fx'fore enacttiient of title VII. The third, filed in lOHO, involved a com- 
pany that {)aK] increased wages for people with military servit'e or college credits— 
which has a dO|parate imfjact on women and minorities. It was recently settled. 

It is difficult to evaluate the basis of thi* complaints because^ in conformance with 
notice pleading, their alletjation.i are very general. Moreover, a conifjlaint brought 
under Title VII alleging Wage discrimination is quite likely to involve only equal 
jobs. Nor do the VA'IOC designations f)r?)vided — "W" for wage and "VII" for Title 
VII-- shed any light. The only w<vy to fiiiji out what a case is m;//v about is to make 
in-def)th inquiries of the attorneys involved.' 

What we can glean froni our* review of the information is that the KKOC's liliga- 
tion of wage discrimination crises since (hmther is virtually non-existent. There is 
no organized, concerted effort to identify and bring wage discrimination cases; there 
is no litigation strategy; there is ncrt even a central coordinator who can identify the 
existing cases. 

Based on the above, the Committee believes that.KFOC's enforcement efforts in 
the area of wage discriitiination can, best be described as inconsistent, ineffective. 
> and totally lacking in any initiative. Vbairman Thomas testified in the fall of \[)H2 
\thal he would "look at the issue ". WV' were reassured of this fact in our meeting 
\wilh him in May of V.)}^'^. ('ommissioner Webb indicated to us that wage discrimina- 
tion cases would be given priority earl^' this year. Yet. nothing of note has been ac- 
complished/* 

The National Committee on Pay Kquity hc^s devised a number of recommenda- 
tions to the^C'ommisHion which, if followed, would ensure that wage discrimination 
eases would be accorded the iniiKfrtarUs** they deserve. Tht,»se recommendations have 
beeft adopted by our rnernbershi|^ <1nd ^iAlieing used by them in their conversation 
and meetings with iocal KEOC (imcials.^Theye recommendations are summarized as 
follows: 

M» The Commission should vigorously enforce its own policy, known as the "00 
day notice," adopted on SeptemV*^-"). lOSl (after the Supreme Court decision in 
(}unther\ to provide interim guidance to field officers on identifying and processing 
sex based wage discrimination charges under Title VII and the Kqual Pay Act. The 
fxjlicy should be rlp'iewed and clarified pt'riodically in order that wage discrimina- 
tion charges be investigated fully. , 

The ('(mfmission should give specialized review and processing to wage discrim- 
iriation cli>rrKes. This includes but is not limited to: 

a. Proper training of field personnel in regional KKOC offices in the i()eiitifi- 
calion of wage discrimination charges; 

b. Kstablishing tight timeframes for review and processing of these charges; 
and 

c. Monitoring by the appropriate staff at KKOC* headquai^ers in Washington, 
to ensure that lime frames are being met. 

C\) The Comjtiission should establish a mechanism to ensure that wage discrimina- 
tion charges receivH by field offices are referred to KKOC headquarters, as dictated 
by the notice, so that proper monitoring can take place. Field offices should be as- 
sessed on the basis of numbers of wage discrimination charges which are processed. 

\ U The Commission should provide, on a quarterly basis, information to the Na- 
tional Committee on Pay Fk^uity regarding wage discrimination charges and cases, 
'I'h^^buuld include number of charg^^. field regions irr which they are filed and 
TjiK^f cases that the KKO(' has decided to pursue. In addition, the EEOC should 
p^^^^^he National Committee with information on F^qual' Pay Act charges and 
cases. 



^ The li.st'nlso includes a few taseK that have recently Ix>en iiutlionwxj for litigation but have 
not yet hx'rn filed in court 

'Th e coMJplele list Ihol the KK(K* provi(l<*d included r>H cases. 2! of whi(*li inclydecj only Fk|unl 
F^iy Act nllegiUi()ns The Comnnssion provided a total of 2l\ complaints, but mr review revealed 
that most of them involved classic Fx^ual Pay Act cases. 

^ Tlu* (\)nuniKsi{)n recently approved a chanjje in the fcKus of the adrrunistrative charge proc- 
essing system As wr understand it. the emphasis is to shift from rapid charne onKessinK to a 
more extended investigation of charges filed Such an approach, if properly handled, might help 
the ('ommission find out about it« wage discrimination charges. 



(.")) Th<' (om mission should establish an KK(X: Headquarters Task Fora^ whose 
functions include: * 

a. Targeting of wage discrimination cases as ])i\ri of the early litigation pro- 
gram and as part of the systemic program no that all ap[)ro[)riate litigation ave- 
nues i\rv pursued in a timely way; 

b. ( oordination with the'KKOCs National Liti^rrtfrOn !'lan so that wag(5 dis- 
crimination will become a litigation priority for the Commission; and 

^ "c. Desjgnation of an individual orvjndividuals in KKOC Headquarters why 
would be responsible for review of all- wage discrinnnatjon cases. 
Adoption of these recommendations would provide the impetus for Ihe develop- 
ment of a cohensive approach to wage discrinnniUion charges. It would put the 
KK(K- where it should be on this issue— at the forefront. But the KKOC has failed to 
adopt them 

'There are no more excuses to be made: the law is in place and the cases are avail- 
% jibU' for investigation and litigation. All that remains is that the KKOV. act. 

Ms. Oakak. Dr. Brown, would you like to proceed, please. 



STATKMKNT OK MS. Ql'INC ALKK BROWN, KXK( rXIVE DIRECTOR,. 
AMKRK AN ASSOC lATION UV I NIVKRSITY WOMEN 

Ms. BuowN. My name is Quincalee:4irown, executive director of 



lar^est^ national organization for the educational advancement of 
women. We have 195,000 members in every congressional district 
who applaud Ms. Oakar and members of' the subcommittee for 
their concern about this vital issue. 

When AAUW was founded in 1«81 its leaders believed that by 
giving women access to equal education, they would also be gaining - 
^ y^qual footing in the marketplace. 

It is tragic to note that in spite of all of our progress in getting 
women into colleges, professional and graduate schools, wdmen on 
the average still earn only Gl percent of every dollar a man earns. 

p]ven more discouraging is that despite all the laws, some of 
which are 20 years old, discriminatory wages are common in both 
' the public and private sector. Even though there have been dra- 
matic changes in the last 15 years, women are still clustered in a 
handul of jobs. Some 4i) percent of all emfjloyed females working in 
just two categories: clerical work and commercial cleaning. 

Considering all the testimony that has preceded me, 1 think I 
would like to take a slightly different tact and d(}scribe to you a 
couple of cases in which I have been involved that deal with com- 
parable worth. 

In li)74 when I was a Federal Women's Program Manager at the 
.-: U.S./Jovornment Printing Office, I became involved wit^Jhe infa- 
mous Bindery 'Workers case. The case of women who sewed books 
together; being paid. far less than men who glued books together. 

I dare say that there are any number of people in this room who 
have had experience both in sewing and gluing, and could attest to 
^ the fact that sewing requires every bit and perhaps even greater 
skill than does gluing. ^ 

It took about 8 years for that case to be first settled in court. 
And the Bindery Workers won the case. However, I do believe that 
there has yet not been a settlement in that the case is still on 
appeal. 

The second time I was involved 

Ms. Oakak. Well, Dr. Devine is waiting anxiously to testify." 
Maybe we can ask him his feelings oa gluing versus sewing. 



the American 




Women, the oldest and 



ERIC 



7S 



Ms. Bkown. Fine, I would look"" forward to that. 
The second case that I was involved in was in about VMl wfuMi I 
• was'tbe executive ^irect<)r of the MontKomery (.'ounty, Md., Coniniis-^ 
sion for Women. 

While mucjxj^the Ijtarature on compat-^ible worth discusse^^y thv ' 
fact that an enlightened county like MontKomery C'ounty diycov^t 
ered that-thnir liquor stort^ ^clerks were being paid mure th^in their 
b^jinninK school teachers, there w«tie no adminis'trafive tVniedies,^« 
since. thoy both worked for different adniini*;tralive bodies. Howev; 
er, when it wa.^'disco^ered that the limKif sto^'e clerks were earmng^ 
more, than the libraj'y clerks, there v^m>^administratij^'e remedits^ 
that we" c^ould pursue^' ,^ ^ 

The Irquor ^tore cfferk^ were four ^^'ades higher and oarned'on 
the average of $;^,()00^ to $T,()U() a year more than did' the fibrary 
/ clerks. / . v.;/ . 

NoW, 4:he li(ilU)rytore.clAJ'ks were required to havi^ jti hi^^i^chool- 
dipioma.' They^stocked tnv iiihelve^^; waited o\ customers ^it Yhe 
(ibockout stand; assisted customers in thy store and handled ri>oney. , 
^ The library clerks oa the other hand were required to'have a,tdi- 
' -leK^^^de^ree. They stocked the book-s on t'he'shelves in the co'rrl'i't 
Dewey Decimal System order; wa'lted on patron^ ia, the library; 
worked at i,he checkout ^esk; assisted custom(>rs and ^handled 
muney. - * ' 

^ The county K<^vernmetU in all its vyisdom ^'^gL^hat the jobs 
were verta'inly got comparable because liquor slMBLlerks had to 
lift heavy boxes. And carrying stacks of books waSwmply. not the 
same, somehow, as lifting boxes of liquor, ^ 

It was this kind of docisfou that led Judy Mann to wrate in one of 
her articles that jobs requiring strength and endurance vyere given 
more value than jobs requiring tact and patience. , - 

WJhile those cases had persotj^l involvements of mine, ckM'tainly 
rAAUW is als(^ most concerned about tinequal pay^tha't stjll exists 
in the acacTemic world,' ^ * • 

In the "eady l!)t)()'s when I was a director of debate ;it a large 
Midwestern vState u^iiversity, I f^ccepted the fact' lhat J was {)aid 
less'than'my assistant debate coach, because-after alPhe had two 
children to su|X{)orl and I was single. 
' ' And while I cringe today at either my naivete 'or s.tupidity, I am 
not\sure which, I am disturbed that even with 'ecjual education and 
equal experience, ucidemic women are paid, on th^e' average, onl.y 
7!) cents for every dollar a manr^rearns. ^ ^ ; ' 

(xirrectihg such mequities has been eventless successfuP-oR col- 
lege campuses beccHise of4he ^nature of the tenure systt^n and the 
.barriers that exist to hiring and promoting faculty women. * 
^ -^AAUW supports the Jiay Pfjuity Act pV V.)M, which encourages' 
par equity in the priva^RecwJr and reenforces the Kederartiovern- 
, nuint's responsibility to protect employees in ^his Natipn> from ille- 
gal pay discrimination. ^ ' , *' ^ ^ 
"^And we also support Ahe Federal J^)m|Tlovet\s Pay Equity Act' of 

in particular -^we endorse the sluclyoutlined in section IV of the^ 
act whiCvh mandates the federal Office of Personnel Management 
U) conduct a study on discriminatoty wa^(o practices a-fid variqrice 
in position classifications. ' . • 



We als()-iH^)[)IaLid the efforts conLained in the leKisIation to submit 
a detaih'd report to the C on^ress on ste[)s hfin^y laken in tHe Feder- 
al (Jovernnient to eliminate phr discrimination. 

We are iilso pleased that the-}\iy Kquity Act of 1!)8 1 outlines s[)e- 
cific activities of the to <ievelo[)'(|nKoinK educational 

grants and conduct research various eqliahle wa^^* setting tech- / 
ni^ues. ihosv techniques beii1|rftiost iniporAaht and to the future of 
comparable vv^orth, and dovcfrrp a plan to provide technical assist- 
ance to em[)l()vers wlio t'eniuest it,. 

The enforc^Mnent provfsions (/f tfje act are essential il women are 
KOinK to gain economic j^^quity. h^ws that aie not enforced and Kx- 
(^cutive orders that unnoticed can only perpetuate injustice. If it 
takesc^a legislative K^ar^yitee of (Enforcement; then, AAIJW fully 
lends itssup[)ort to 'Ihe^vi^orous and timely applhcation of the act. 

Women workers, as Ve have heard, perform mosf and many of 
the most important jobsjn our economy. They are the teachers of 
our Nations children. They are prihii^iry providers of health care. 
They are the backbone'oj' any office. 

It is time for Congress to rej^'o^aii/e tha'^t the contribution women 
make to the economy retjuires nondiscrimin^ator^' pay scales. 

Women work for tTonomic/ileedf>; got for the luxury and fun of 
the job. KndinK discriminati(^i in^he pay scaU^^s of American work- 
ers marks a first step, to the recognition that women are truly 
equal partners in the economic security of our Natioij. 

Thank you. ^ ^ 

Ms. ()akak. Thank you, Dr. Hrowji, for your exquisite examples. 

It ii^ ^interesting when you talk about university womeji versus 
university men. The ('hair's own ex[)erience cor^iies into play. I was 
so Klad to a job at a university in those days\But, when I got U, ^ 
I was placed at a lower step. Whoever hires hasUhe option of plac- 
ing you. 

„ What has happened historically is that females are phiced in a 
loM'er step to be^in with, (»ven if they have the exact same experi- 
ence, the e?j.act qualifications, and education. 

M is regally a lesson in manipulation, when you look at exam[)les 
like that; eve^n in what somebody would consider a more sophisti- 
cated field. 'That it is just as true for a college professor who is ' 
fenial(\ than someone who sews books together. 

Nancy, can you^tell me how many cases are backlo^^t'd at the 
EKOC;? ^ - . -^^^ . 

M.S. Kkukk. Veil, I thinly I.anv^^oing to let tMhydia answer the 
'question TTh the (^xact number. • ^ 

Ms. Oakak, Claudia, would you identify yourself,, please, for the 
record. 

Ms. WrrMKKs. Yes. I am Claudia Withers; I am a staff attorney at 
the Women's Lej^al Defense Fund. *• 

->-4)fir information te^j^ us ''that there are about 272 charges that 
we know of that are "batklogKed [n hQadquarter^? of the KKOC. We 
dg not know how many others might be somewhere in the regional 
offices. . * 

Ms. OAKAii^Hut that is.just^the headquarters? , ' 

Ms. Wn^MKKS. Yes, ma'am. ' ^- 

'Ms. Oakak. I know of j4ome casVs ia*theV(.'hicago area'wlWe 
wom^^n have been told, ''Well, we are so busy, we just canno^'^et 



so - \ 

v.. \ 

vours.** Women wait monlhs and moriths. This is ttoie im ovvr the ^ 
country. 

So. you are talking about tfrrnational headcjuarters. 
Ms. WrruKKs, Yes, that is what we are talking about. 
As. Nancy rnerttioned earlier, a h)t ol* [)e()[)le that are coming in 
with wage* (iiscrXnination charges rnay well are being told that 
• there is no [)olicyV Arid, so, there may be countless other possible* * 
cases that we arc\not aware oi'. Thev just are not bein^ han- 
- died ~ \ 

'* Ms. Oakak. You fiu^an, workers that work Ibr the'olTice are 
saying, there is no [)olicy even though the law is clear.^ 
- Ms. WrmKKs/Well. that is Jlhe e;([)eri(»nce that we have heard of, 
CiSpecially in the Chicago example that Naricy gave. 
Ms. Oakak. hi tli^e Chicago area. 1 see. 

Ms. Ukdkk. We do uot k/io\v how a)any of the [)eo[)le who come 
in and file a charge of" discrimination, and eitlier little or no inves- 
tigation is done, and then the charge is sim[)ly disniissed. And , 
there may be a rVuijiber o(" those cases. We do not know how many 
of them th(Me are. 

Ms. Oakak. Are you saying that the expeditious way to deal with 
the cases that are backlogged is just dismiss them? ^ 

Ms. Rkdkk. Well, of course, that is one thing that can' be done. 

It is my understanding that the workers in the field offices for 
P^KOC are required to' h;tindle a certain number of cases. I think 
that is the new policy that has heen introduced, to speed things U[). 

And tJriat oru* .way ol handling those cases is to do as quick an 
investigation as possible, and either dismiss them as> you know, no 
cause, yyhich is what you do when you^^j^^f no cause of complaint. 

Ms.' Oakak. You have mentioned in your testimony, if^I am ngt 
mistaken, .that there was no litigation strategy and no, plan of 
V action as advocates for the law. /■ [ 

^ Have you asked them in writing to give you some strategy? 

Ms. Rkdkk. The National C-ommittee on I^iy Kquity develo[^'*^ a 
list of recommendations for action by EEOC which we presented to 
Olarence Tho/nas almost a year ago at' a meeting. That list of rec- 
^ omniendations is included in the written testimony that we put 
into the record. And we asked — those recomni(»ndations include — 
let's see if I can sort of summarize thenr Ibr you. 

Vigorous enlbrcement of the (Hi day notice policy in that the 
Oommission should give specialized rQview in processing to wage 
discrimination charges, including the proper training of field per- 
sonnel, establishing tight timeframes for revi^.w and processing of 
charges; and monitoring by appropriate staff at EEOC headquar- 
ters in Washington, !).('., to insure that timeframes are being ttiet. 

We met with William Webb, one of the Comrtaissioners several 
months ago, and he talked about EEOC' developing a policy for how 
,to handle these types of cases. I think that is what you referred to 
that Oiarejre Thomas tt^stified belbre yoyr subcommittee a couple 
of years a^ 

And we questioned why they needed a rtevV policy ol* kiw. I mean, 
the recommendations that we have outlined are recommendations 
in^erjm^^ of handling these charges that are already pending, and 
any others that may come forth. And it would certainly help the 
agency in terms of ifcentifying these kinds of cases, because I think 

(, « • 

ERIC, .' bj 



SI 



that IS wh.its so iiiiportaiit is that litst they hv idcnt il icd; and. 
swond. that they be haiidlccf in aiV expeditious and appropriate 
nuuiner. And that is just not bein^^ done. 

Ms. Oakak. Dr. Brown, we know the eeoiiomie prnblenvs that 
women have when they are not paid justly. And we know fhe end 
result IS that when they ^et older they become thw poorest people 
. m the couiYtry. 

Tell nie ahoLjt the morale that women I'eel when ihey know that 
another prole.s.sor. lor example, is paying more than theirs 

Ms. Brown. I think it's been our rather clo.se a.s.social ion wit I 
some of these women in colleges and dmiversit ies who have in .sonie 
cases liled ()r who have even gone to court, that led AlIV'W to 
create their legal advocacy lund. We've been supporting .se\eral 
cases; one is the Corn,'// E/vvcu case which has gained some nation- 
al prominence, as the case of women at Cornell who filed against 
the university on tenure end pay eciuity 

'Hiere are .some absolutely outstan(inig examples For example 
the only woman in the. United States wko Iuik evei >'oauthorr,. i 
book with a Soviet .scientist who is an iTilernationallv recogm/.ed 
authority m the field of Soyiet-Americm relations " was turned 
down lor tenure in lu.'r department, bemu.M" her woi'k wasn't ade 
quate even though she had out published and uutsfudied mo.st of 
the men in the depart^ment. 

histead, t^e position wn?, givqn to a friend .i| the president of the 
university who had been lircd at Firown and was not granted 
tenure there and who bad not s. ; finished bis doctor's d(>gree So 
those weie the kinds of inequities experittnced l)v just 1 wbmarvtnit 
ol the 11 that filed against Cornell 

Ms. Oakak. The Chair personally knov.,^ of the case at Notn- 
Dame University wliere so many women sued the university be- 
cause they weren t granted tenuVe. They f it th<Mr qualifications 
were equally as good if not-.UMter than the men who got tenure. 
That was a cla.ssic example of discriiiunat ion. 

Ms. Bkown Well, riglit now there's a ca.se lieing tried in court 
that we ought to keep our eye on and thai is tlie Prnk (7«se in 
()regon. It may be one of tlu- best ca.ses that will come out over 
these lew years It's a aa.se where the entir(- State university 
sy.stem is being sued by the female lacultv of the State univet^sity 
One of the things that's interesting is that the State has now spent 
j pf-obably $:{ million m defending thri, position. It .seems a shame, 
they could prol)ably have granted the back pa v and promotions and 
tenures th;\i^re owed to the wom^n Ibr the amount of money that 
they are spending ni hifipg attorneys. The case will probably be 
tried lor almost (i months. 

Mary Cray who is the president of WKAL and a statistician. 
- whom you probabiv have met. is Hying back and forth from Wash 
. ington testilying extensively on the Pcnk ca.se aii4.Lhinks that it's 
probably one of the l>est ones. 

There's no question, (^ongre.sswoman Oakar. that .the morale 
factor is tremendous. Th(> other thing that you realized -you know 
your lead-innwas— women a.s- they are older end up in poverty as 
the amount of money that you earn as .salary throughout your 
career determines your retirement. And if you start off several 
steps ie8.s than another person Who has even equal or sometimes 



/ 

S2 

less credentials, you tirvtM' make tliat tbiou^hout an tTitirx* lifV- 
tniu'. And so it's a very cuinalative kind of thin.g. Once you realize* 
it's happening to you. ihv rnoraU* factor is devastating Not (;nly 
tin* fact that you may Inid yoursi^lf at midlife or' niidcareew' biung 
denied access to the ti^nure that you need or to {hv promotions that 
you need, to even survive in an academic worid. 
It s a very serious [)r()l)lem. 

Ms. Oakak. Wlien you add to tlie fact that for most woiTien social 
security and pension covera^^* ai'(» inad(>qLKwt(>, tlu* issue becomes 
much larger 

We'r(^ realfy dealing with an issue that relates to one's survival, 
pai'ticularly .wlier\ one gets older. And tins is wliy 1 think it's so 
im[)or*tant 

I want to thank all tliree of you for l)eing here. W(»'r(» Vei'j/. very 
greatc^ful for tlie work tliat you're doing. 
Ms. JiHowN. Thank you very mucli. 

Ms. Oakaic Our- ru^xt witness is [hv I lonor'abh* Dr. Donald J. 
Devine. who's the Dir*(»ctor of tlie U.S. Office of Personnel Manage- 
ment Dr. De^vine, tliank you for your •patienc(v We're sorry that 
it's taking so long to get to you. but, we kr'iow that the testimony's 
hee^n instructive. We've given you a major role to play in our legis- 
lation. We'ri^ pleased that you're hvvv to testify about the subject of 
pay ecjuity {'lease pr'oceed. Doctor*, in any vvay tliat's hiost cornfor't- 
able^'or you. 

Thank you very nmch, * 

^ S TATK.MKNT OK DR. DONALD .1. DKVINK. OIRKCTOK OF l .S. 
OFFK K OK KKKSONNKL >I ANACIKMKNT 

Dr. Dkvink. Thank you ver'y much for having me; it's a pleasure 
to be here befor'e the committee toflay and to talk about the Pay 
tMjuity Act and to be befor'e this committee again on this subject as 
we were a year ago or so. 

First thing Pd like to make abundantly clear is that, this admin- 
istration is I Lilly committed to equal pay for* equal work. Pd like to 
point out that mv statutes controlling pay already require, in the 
Federal (Jovernr\ient, equal pay for substantially equal work. 

The systern for evaluating positions in the Federal service, which 
I will describe in some detail, is designed to insure that the' princi- 
ples set forth by the Congress in law are carried out. About 1,()()0 
OPM employees work in our staffing group which performs recruit- 
ing, examining, and job standards functions, and makes u-p more 
than 25 percent of OPM's total employment. 

The major assumption of H.R. 4599 is that salary discrimination 
i.*^' prevalent in the J;>wlf1^il (Jovernment wage sysit^m. If this is 
true» the present system is already at variance with the law. 

I believe it would l)e useful to first outline the legal principles 
under which the Federal system Works. 

^ Section^2:i01 of title 5 of the United States ('ode establishes the 
merit system principles; particularly pertinent are merit principle 
No. 2 which requires' fair and equitable treatment of all employees 
and applicants, and principle No. *A which states that — 

K<]ual pay should be provided for work of vqunl value, with appropriate consider- 
ation of both national and local rates paid by employers in the private sector, and 

/ 8/ , 



appropriate* mctTilivcs aixl nroKnilioii should be provided lor t*xc(dl(Mue m pc'rform- 
Soction olOl states that— 

It is purpose of Ihis chapter to provide a plan for elassification of positimis 
whereby i h ui deternuniriK Ihe rate of hasic pay which an emplovee wMI receive (ai 
the principle ol equal pay for suhstafitially equal work will be foMowed and (hi vari- 
ations HI rates ol basic pay paid to different Om[)|ovees :wjll he in propofti*»n to sub- 
s antial dillerences in the dddculty. responsibility, and qualillcation reuuirements 
()( the work perlortned and to the contributions of employees (o efficiency and econo- 
my in the service, and -LM individual positions will, in accordance with their duties 
responsibilities, and qualification re(iuireinents. be so grouped and identified bv 
classes and urade.s as defined by section :)1I)L^ of this title and thT* various classes will 
be so describeci in published slandards. as provided bv section .".lUo uf Ibis title that 
the re.sultiiiK position-classification system can be used in all phas>^s"(;f personnel 
administration ' 

vSection olOf) states that— 

The Office of Personnel Management . after consulting the agencies, shall prepare 
stamkifds for placing positions m their proper classes and grades The Office mav 
make such impuries or inve.^ligations of the duties, responsibilities, and qualifica- 
tion requir-Mnents of positions as it considers necessary for this purpo.se The agen 
(les. on request of the Office, shall furnish information. The Oflice shall (1) define 
the various classes of positions in UMjrfis of duties, rt'sponsibilities. an^ qualification 
requiremenis- (L>i establish the oflTii^al class titles; and CU set fcrrth the grades in 
which the classes have been placed by t l-u^Office. ■ -> 

Section 7A{y\ defines in general terms the level of duties and re- 
sponsibiljties for each general schedule grade 1 through IH. The 
general schedule includes about 1.4 million employees. General 
schedule positions are located in almost all Federal agencies and 
indude a great diver/sity^ of* occupations ranging fro nv messengers 
and clerks to highly skilled professionals in such fields as econom- 
ics, law, accounting, the social, medical, biological, and physical sci- 
* ^^"^^>^«v^^"Kineering, education, management, and administration. 

P^'^^'^^' methodology used to evaluate general schedule posi- 
tions is called the Factor Evaluation System for nonsupervisory po- 
sitions in the. (;S-1 through GS-lf) range. The factor evaluation 
system (MvS) was developed in the l!)7()'s and implemented in 1975 
in response to the Job Evaluation Policy Act of 1970, which identi- 
fied a number of concerns related to equity and consistency in 'the 
evaluation of Federal positions. 

The FES has nine factor and from three to nine levels defined 
for each factor. These factors, along with . the number of factor 
levels and point ranges, are: 

Factor 1, knowledge required for the position, is the most impor- 
tant single factor; it has 9 levels and ranges between 50 and' 1,850 
points. 

Factor 2, supervisory controls, has 5 levels ranging from 25 to 
(ioO {)oints. 

Factor guidelines, has 5 levels from 25 to (JoO points. « 
Factor 4, complexity, has^i levels froni 25 to 450 points. ^ 
Factor 5, scope and efTect of the job, has 0 levels ranging from 25 
to 450 points.. 

P'actor (i, personal contacts, 4 Jevels ranging from 10 to 110 
points. « 

Factor 7, purpose of contacts, 4 levels, .ranging from 20 to 220 
points. 

Factor H, physical demands, li levels, ranging from 5 to 50 points. 



ERLC 



/ 



SI 

Aru] factor !), work envir-onnicMU, l\ hovels, ranging^Vom o t() 50 
points, 

In Lirdli/ing the factor cvaUialion systiMii. positions arc [)()int- 
ratcd. factor level by factor l^vcK^ i^nfl the following [)()int raiages 
are used to conv(»rt a position s totaf [)()int score to a (JS grade. The 
ranges are listed in the written testimony, hut they go from (JS-K 
- with a range of li)0 to 251) [)oints, through to (nS lf;, with ijlor) to 
•l,4S() points, the maxii]ium under the factor evaluation system ^ie- 
signed for work of that complexity. 

Ms. Oakak. Doctor, do you think the ratings are fair? 

Dr. Dkvink. Fair in what sense? 

Ms. Oakak. In terms of the amount of.points youj^ve for certain 
types of |)rofessi()ns? « 

Dr. Dkvink. Well. I'm not here to'dt^cnd the s>'>;tenij this system 
is 

Ms. Oakak. Tni not blaming you for the system,^ither, belv^ve it 
or not. White collar women, for example, on the'*average make 
about $17, ()()() versus $27,S:5() for men. Are the points given for cer- 
tain professions allocated, fairly, or should some* professions get 
more than they already get? That's the issue. Why is there a 
discrepancy b(»tween the average male and ferfiale Federal 
emp)l()yee. , 

Dr. Dkvink. I would say the-Q>ain r(»ason is seniority. We have a 
system that's grown up over about 100 years in which seniority' is 
. built into the major foundations of the system. ■Th(» niedian seniori- 
ty level, for exam[)le, for women in the government, is about M.!^ 
years; for men, it's about fi^ years, about twice as high. That's one 
of the reasons that we've been trying to mak(* [)erf()rmance more 
important in the [)ersonru^l system because women do much better 
under performance than seniority criteria. 

Ms, Oakak. Well, if I use your example of an average woman's in 
for )i years and the average man's injor (J years, do you think that 
the job, the differentiation, should be $10, ()()() more for that person? 

Dr. Dkvink. No; I think pay should be based on performance, and 
if it were, the differential would be much, much less. 

Ms. Oakak. Well, I'll be asking you some questions about where 
the hrgh points are in the Feder*al civil service system, but please 
continue. 

Dr. Dkvink. Thank you. Each of the 45 factor leyels in this 9- 
factor system is defined in a primary standard by a short para- 
graph, and it v^as that primary standard that was for'warded to 
('ongress as a consequence of the job evaluation policy. Since the 
P'ederal Oovernnient, howev(^, operates a highly decentralized clas- 
sification system, a generally written primary standard factor level 
definition has not in t^he past been deemed to be specific enough to 
ensure uniform grading by the approximately 2, ()()() position classi- 
fication specialists worldwide, who utilize the system to evaluate 
the 1.4 million positions in the hundreds of organizational loca- 
tions. Thus, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management interprets 
the primary standard factor levels by describing them in specific 
occupational terms. , 

These descr'iptions, along with other guidance, are found in ind^ 
vidually published classification standards. Occupational classifi 
tion standards also include benchmark position descripti 

' ERIC 8 J 




4 



\ 



Hi) 

. Benchmark position descriptions are position descriptions which 
V ^ are GlTicially chissilled by the Office of Personnel Management, 
>]ach benchmark contains a summary duty statement and further 
Interpretation of each of the KES factors, written in terms of posi- 
tions whk:h are found in significant numbers in the occupation. 

Thus, while ()PM occupati^flially interprets the position classifi- 
cation statute and the KKS primary standard through the develop- 
ment and issuance of standards, agencies evaluate their positions 
by applying the classification standards. 

As you can see, the existing system is that summarized in section 
:i(4) of M.R. 4;")!)!), in^cluding the guarantee of equal pay for substan- 
tially equal work. All of the parts of the Federal system— the stat- 
ute, the primary standard, occupational factor level descriptions, 
occupational benchmarks~-com[)rise an interlocking job evaluation 
system. 

The focal point of that system is classification standards. Stand- 
ards contain the highly specific measures ag(Hicies n^ed to grade 
their positions. Included are occupationally based factor level de- 
scriptions which interpret the i)rimary standards factor levels, 
benchmarks covering from .'5 to 20 positions depending on the occu- 
pation s complexity and diversity, and a host of other gui^dance ma- 
terials. 

In the course of an occupational study, the ()Ccui)ational special- 
ist develops extensive and detailed information regarding the work 
of the occupation, ho/v it is done, the levels of work, the knowledge, 
skills and ability required to do the work at each level and speciali- 
zatirto, and the relationship of the work to other occupations. These 
facts ^^d h/lgm^ are obtained from key management official^) 
and supervisors, employeus at various levels of the o^'cupation, i)er- 
sonnel officials and specialists, professional and technical societies, 
unions and other organized groups, represcyUatives of the academic 
c'ommunity, industry, and others. 

This body of information forms the basis for a draft classification 
and qualincation standard which describes the leveljj of difficulty 
and responsibility, identifies those levels with grade levels, de- 
scribes the knowledges, skills and abilities Required to enter the oc- 
cupation, and identifies the kinds and levels of education, experi- 
ence, and training which provide the required knowledges, skills 
and abilities. 

Draft standards are issued for review and comment by agencies, 
unions, and other interested parties. This critical review of draft 
standards is a vital part of the process. The comhients received are 
carefully reviewed and appropriate correction^/)r cla;^ificaf ions are 
, made so that the final standards issued are ciccurate and* can be 
appfied consistently. The management of each agency Xheif^appHes . 
these standards in classifying jobs within that agency. 

H.R 45!)!) proposes that 0PM establish an equitable job ^valua- 
tion technique. The bill defines a job evaluation technique as ''an 
objective method of determining the comparative value of different 
jobs utilizing a system which rates numerically the basic features 
and requirements of a particular job, including such factors as edu- 
cation, traininj/, skills, experience, effort, responsibility and work- 
ing conditions. ' The bill further defines- an equitable job evaluation 
technique as a * job evaluation technique which, to the maximum 

ERIC ^ 



m. 

extent possible, does not ineludi* components Ibr^determinin^ the 
comparative value pi' a job that reflect the sex, race, or ethnicity ol' 
the employee/,' The factor evaluation system now working in the 
Government is such a system. It seems tg me that this legislation 
proposes ttie establishment of that which already is in place. Both 
ILR. 4;")!)!) and r)()i)2 propose to riKmdate a study of the Federal job 
evaluation systern. You will be pleased to know that a legislatively 
Mandated study is not necessary. 

I have already directed my staff to conduct a thorough review of 
the entir^ standards process. Included in fne review is the follow- 
\nii: We are examining first how closely our system follovys civil 
service Llw, particularly whether we follow merit pVinciple iJ. 
Second, we are studying whether any form of discrimination exists 
in our classification system. We recognV.e that, the elim4natibn' of 
any discrimination is an important and desirable goal. Third, We 
are examining the judgmental aspects of job evaluation to deter- 
mine if the subjectivity of our system can be reduced in any way. 
We want to ensure that we operate a systtVi which is neither arbi- 
trary 'nor biased. P'ourth, we're exploring what unnecessary restric- 
tions may exist on entry to Federal jobs, such as excessive crede;i- 
tialing. Finally, we're comparing the virtues and problems of the 
Federal wage system with those of the general schedulx* and we are 
examining the rationale for maintaining these distinct systems. 

There has been a good deal of public discussion of comparable 
worth as a mechanism for giving special attention to recognizing 
the worth of jobs, especiallytthose predominantly populated by 
women. Much of the discussion has concentrated on documenting 
the .pay relationships by sex among jobs, and perceived pay differ- 
ences. But there is little information on *how to get from the prob- 
lem to tfie solution.. ^ ^ 

The T^lqual RImployment Opportunity ('ommissicTn; in 1!)7S, com- 
missioned the National Academy of Sciences to extmiine the issues 
involved in the cortiparable worth^concept of compensation, T+ve 
NAS report, ''Women, Work, and Wag^^s: Kqual Pay for Jobs of 
F(}ual Value," was issued in IDHl, Although the J^AS final report 
did not definitively describe what might constitute affair and equi-* 
table Job evaluation plan, it did suggest some characteristics which 
the NAS commi^ttee believed to be prerequisite nor a comparable 
worth job evaluation system,. " ' . 

Tbt'se ifrei^first, consistent' treatment of jobs wit hirb^i ^comprehen- 
sive. av^^luation plan; secon^Jj^explicit evali^ation criter^yj and third, 
an efnphasis.on jntern^l eq.uity^ amQ.ng jobs, ^. 

These are the jfcime characteristics jmesi^qt in "the current Feder- 
al job evaluation system. For^ eo(ample, as regards consistent treat- 
ment of jobs, grades for all general schedule positions are deter- 
mined by agency personnel using the position classification stand- 
ards developed and issued by 0PM. 

As I indicated earlier, 0PM claj^sification standards interpret the 
grade value- guidance provided in section -5104 of title 5. So the 
same scale of values is used for all positions from (JS-1 through 
(JS-IT), regardless of type or level x).f .position. In addition, by apply- 
ing e<jch of the il'comnion factors consistently, the iactor evaluation 
system further insures thtrt all positions are fully evaluated within 
a common franu'work. 




87 . 



As regards availability of explicit evaluation criteria, many of 
our position classification standards run upwards of 100 pages in 
length, ThtM'(rare about :U)0 oecujiational standards for the approxi- 
mately 42:") GS occupations. Those occupations without speci^c 
sta'ndards, most of which have relatively few employees,, are evahr- 
ated by cross-referencing to* related occupations. Of course, there is 
easy access to [)ublished standards through the Government Print- 
ing ()ffi(i'e, agency personnel offices, and many public and universi- 
ty libraries. 

^ Each classification standard provides a good deal of information 
about its occupational coverage so that positions' will be classified 
to the correct series, and specific grade U^vel criteria. FES bench- 
marks, in addition, describe work situations which typically repre- 

' sent signilicant numbers of positions. 

The third characteristic mentioned in the NAS report, emphasis 
on intermgi equity, can be traced back to- the Classification 
Act, In that act, grades were first established and defined in terms 
of the level of difficult, v'eyponsibility, and qualifications required. 
These grades w(>to thought tg» be so central to the system that they 
and their short d/Hnitions were established in law. 

All of the Government's various white-collar joby were then ana- 
lyzed and eVivJuated in terms of those measures and placed or clas- 
sified ^into ^nides. Only then was pay attached to the grade; yield- 
ing a pay rate for an empjoyeejn a job. classified to that grade. 
Thus, diverse jobs, in diverse occu{)al'ions, in diverse- agencies found 
4heir way into the same single grade, whose incumbents were ihen 
paid ih% same. ' ' 

Although the \\)2:\ Classification Act established only o different 
Job evaluation ()r pay services, those 5 services were conceptually 
interrelated. Those serviced; were professional and .scientific; cleri- 
cal, administrative and tiscal; subprofessionai/custodial; and cleri- 
cal mechanical. 

By i;)4!), only the first se^rvices were in extensive use for white- 
collar jobs. However, all during the peri^certain grades in the 
^t)r()fessional and CAF services always had the same i)ay rates.' The 
principal link between these separate services, was the .equation oL 
P-1 profe.ssional (beginning co^^ge graduate professional) with 
CAF-T; (a full performance secretary, accounting technician or per- 
sonnel assistant). 

Apparently, this resulted from the belief that a 4 year, that Is, 
)i()-month college education, was equivalent to i^years of progres- 
sively responsible experience in a demanding office or technical 
job. When the two major schedules were merged into one by law in 
191!). P-1 and CAF-f) became the single grade (JS-o, The 10-graded 
CAF system became th(^ first 10 grades of the new (}S system, and 
with a several grade overlap— GS-o through 10, the X-graded pro- 
fessional system became the GS system's last H grades, and this is 
basically the system that exists today. One general schedule for vir- 
tually all white collar jobs in the civilian Federal civil service. 

It is important- to note that the National Academy of Sciences' 
study concluded that for all job evaluation systems: 

It musi ho rocognimi thnt there ^ire no definitive \o^\s of the Cairnes.s of the 
choice of cornnensnhle factors and the relntive weights given to them. The process'is 
inherently judKniental and iLs succesK in generating a wage^ructure that is deemed 



88 



oqui table depends on Hchieving a coirsensus alxjul 1 actors and their wei^'hls ainonf,' 
employers and employees. A 

The minority report, alUwugh giving)s^pport to the idea that the 
content of jobs can be evaluated neutrally, stressed that any such 
system had to be correlated to existing/ market values. The major 
criticism leveled at existing job evaluation compen;;5ation systems, 
•public and private, by comparable* worth proponents, however, is" 
precisely this perceived over-relianctng^pon the use of exteinal 
market^wage rates to set the pay of an organization's work force. 
They^^-argue that since such reliance on marketplace rates tends to 
pfTpetuate differences in pay, comparabil'ity with the market, espe- 
cially on a job-to-job basis, would simply reinforce such differences. 
Yet, even when there's agreement on comparable worth principles, 
it is difficult to decidc^ow to deal with it. Even the National Acad- 
emy of Sciences* Report cautioned that their methods were experi- 
mental and did not specify how one gets from' fair -job evaluation 
on the. one' hand, to comparable^ worth on the other." 

But what is not experimental is job evaluation in the P'ederal 
Government. It is fair in Us own context and it exists independent- 
ly of the issue of comparable worth. 

When I say the system is fair, however, that does not mean it s 
perfect. Human btnngs are not perfect. For example, this adminis- 
tration has disc1)vered substantial misclassiflcation by agencies of 
Federal jobs. Not only is overclassification unfair to taxpayers 
since it is, expensive, but, if one assumes sex bias on the part of 
Federal management, one must assurxie such bias carries over into 
niisclassirication. It follows that the lack of proper classification by 
agencies would be a major source pf sex bias in the work force 
rather than just imperfections in standard setting. 

Also, it should be noted that in its 1082 study, ''Breaking Trust,'' 
the Merit 3jystems Protection Board reported that by far the larg- 
vest number'of reports of observed group discrimination was against- 
nonminority males. It may be argued that federal employjeeS are 
jiot the best evidlmce on such niatters since OPM evaluations have 
not, detected such violations. On the other hand, employees may 
have better access to and therefore knowledge of these matters 
than outside evaljuators. . " ; . 

, I would be much Jess than candid if L didn't also admit thiat there 
i^ a signficicint judgmental factor in job evaluation itself. AUb^t^h 
criteria intended to be objective are used, and numbers are even 
the final produ(/t, judgment is involved in every stage, even of the 
standards process. Clearly, this i^ so for the major factor decisions 
mad^ throughout the process. ^ ^ ' 
' Whea setting standards evaluating jobs, there must be some per- 
spective according to which OPM operates. First, one could' be ^ 
simply Arbitrary or biased. Clearly this is unacceptable. A second^ 
perspective is to rely upon the experts in the professional associa- 
tions which certify the occupations. h\ general, however, the irvter- 
est of such' an association is to restrict entry through credentialing, \ 
to limiV supply and, therefore, irjcrease the conjpenSation of those 
alreatly certified. ^ " ' , 

This Director's approach has been to limit credentialing. to the 
minirtium necessary to prgvide for the knowledge, skills, and de- 
mands necessary for performing.the work.^In this way, the market 



IS able to work to its maximum, to allow the ^neatest amount of 
opportunity to all potential applicants Ibr the position. Tliis limit' 
on credentialing is especially beneficial for women, since hist()ric 
educational and cujtui'al patterns in many occupations have ma(i(» 
It difficult for some women, to accumulate'extensive formal creden- 
tials. ' . ' - ■ . 

'We are working to rid the system of as mai;iv restrictions to 
entry. like credentialing, as we. can. Yet/l migfu add that in each 
case where I have attempt(^(j to do so, substantial opposition has 
been generated. 

To achieve the uniformity assumed by comparable worth advo- 
cates, it would also be necessary to consider the wage grade system. 
At present, l^)), ()()() Federal employees in blue collar, mor(» union- 
ized occupations, are not integrated into the white collar job eval- 
uation system. We would expect very substantial union opposition 
to such an effort. 

1 would like to stress again that, even if all of these changes 
were accomplished to- make the job (^valuation svstem more equita- 
ble, (his would still^^ot be a^ comparable worth system. As two stafl' 
members of the National Academy of Sciea^es have previously tes- 
tified to this committee, there is still the question of relative worth. 
As they noted, relative worth is a matter of values. It is a difficult 
probh^m to measure values and worth. Whose values, do we rely 
upon'.^ Mine? Yours? Really, the only way free societies have found 
to do this IS to refer to the vaj^ue choices which exist in the market. 
•Hut. this brings us full cMrcle again, since' it'^; often these values 
-which are objected to by the proponents of comparable worth. 

Given present knowledge regarding the setting of the worth of a 
job, I do not se(^ any alterrlative to having the final touchstone for 
setting worth to be the market. P'air job evaluation can only go so 
far. V/e should continue refining our classification system but, 
unless new ideas are developed, we cannot go much further with- 
out being arbitrary. 

At the second day of the last h^^arings you held on this subject, 
Congresswoman Ferraro really asked the central question. She ' 
asked, how cduld one determine worth if neither market forces or 
job evaluation techniques do it? Thomas Donohue, Secretary -Treas- 
ure^- of the AFL-CIO, ^aid thtit worth must be determined in the 
private sector by joint agreements reached by labor and manage- 
ment.^ This means, in effect, relying upon the market. This is the 
necessary answer to the question for the private sector. 

The Federal Government must follow the private sector. Our 
whole compensation system is based upon the principle of compara- 
bihty to the private sector. Although adherence to that pfinciple 
has been difficult in recent years, the principU^ itself remains the 
only one under which we can operate and be justified to the public 
as fair and not arbitrary. 

In conclusion. Madam Chairwoman, I believe that we at the 
Office of Personnel Management have made and are making 
progress in improving our system of classifying and evaluating Fed- 
eral jobs. Until some other system can be devised to be equitable to 
all employees, the Office of Personnel Management remains dedi- 
cated to the setting of fair standards through job evaluation fqr its 
employees, fair enforcement of classification decisions in the agen- 



!)() 



cios for its .employees, and croatin^^ a more accurate [)ay compara- 
bility system for the (Jovernment. ' 

I hope these actions will be of some benefit in achievin^^ the lair 
classification and [)ay system which all -Federal employees deserve. 
That concludes my [)re[)ared stahMnent and of course I will be 
hap|>v to answer any questions t[iat you may have. 

Ms, Oaka-k. Thank you. Dr. Devine, for your statement and for 
beiliK here today. Let me just say thiit Tm ^dad the Office of Per- 
sonnel Management is doing a study <)vM>rts issue; it's overdue. 

You know of course thlU my legisLy^^^ calls for ruuch more than 
that? It asks for a detailed.studyyffntil we got y()Ur testimony, we 
didn't know you were conldvic'tj;^^ the study. If you'd like to share 
the framework with my stiifj/vve'd be very grateful. 

My legislation ai?ks t]>^fl^V()u report to the President and Con- 
gress on sex-based wji^^o discrimination in the Federal, sector within 
i) moriths of enac^siy^t, make recommendations for change, and in- 
clude a timetable/f(:)r implementation. 

We're asking yAu to really put forward a plan of action, once you 
study u, and we give you a framework by which to study it. You 
di,d nuHjtion the National Academy of Sciences and you said, in 
part, that job evaluations are largely judgmental. 

For the record, let me aslf you a. judgmental question. Do you 
think that there are some women iri the Federal work force that 
are not paid adequately for the work that they perform? 

Dr. Dkvink. Pm suro^ii^re are case»» certainly, 

Ms, Oakak. That's a start in the right directio^i. in any event, I 
was going to ask you about the proposal to change the standard f^r' 
librarians. Since there is a lawsuit pending, I won't askVou about 
that occupation. * 

In your testimony before the subcommittees in 1!)H2, you. stated,: 
and I quote: "If women are going to be given a shot at traditionally 
maje dominated Occupations, it is critically important to reduce the> 
barriers to women's entry into those occupations," 
. Y^i, when we review the full-time civilian white-collar employ- 
ment data for tliv Federal work force, it becomes readily apparent 
that women are still clustered in the lower graded clerical, techni- 
cal, and administrative positions. As a matter of fact there are 
nearly six times as many wonten in GS-4 clerical positions as men, 
virhile men outnumber women by more than JO to 1 in professional 
positions above GS-12. I was pleased to hear of your new women's 
executive leadership program. It's a step in the right direction; al- 
though I think it's late and top small. ^ ^ 

What other actions has 0PM undertaken since- the executive 
leadership program to recruit women into higher graded profes- 
sional positions? Have you had a zealous program to get women 
» into the, as you say, traditionally male-dominated occupations? 

Dr. Devink, And you want me to exclude our premier program 
from my answer, is that how I interpret the question? 

Ms. OAKArt. Well, how are you doing? 

Df. Devine. Well, how about that one. I think that's a pretty 
good program. 

Ms. Oakar. How many women have 'you hired that are now in 
executiA^e positions? ' * ^ 




91 



Dr. Dkvink. Wt' have, as a matter of lact, hired a person who ap- 
peared as a c-ritical witness at these hearings before, and said that * 
that was a problem m the (]overimic;nlu^e were r.H<[)onsive to that ^ 
. issue raised m your committee; we acted to set the [)ro^'rani tip We 
•set It up as an (lite pilot program that can be copievl around (he 
agencies, and Irankly it's a little discouraKMriK to liear^il's too little 
too late. 

We think its a ^ood program and we have to start somewhere 
and Uiis program makes sense. It was raised to our attention for 
the first time at these hearings; it is not an inordinate-amount of 
time to get a program into existence after consulting with the 
many groups Ljiat we did throughout the (Gover n ment. For exam- 
ple, we spoke with many of the women's program heads through- 
out the (Jovernment. We think that it's a good program and it's an 
important program. 

We identified 4wo major gaps in our Federal service. One was we 
weren t getting enough women into the higher grades, the 1:5 to lo 
level, and tlien into the senior executive .service. We asked 
women s group representatives and many other rwembers of the 
public what the reason was for that as they saw it. 

The> all universally focused on the problem in the GS system 
just below the 18, roughly, the 9 to 12 category, as the area hi 
which dead-ending took place. So we focused our program and it's 
;><) people to start off, which is m'ore than the White Hou.se Fellows 

"''^ii^^*'^''^'^*'"^'''^^^^'^'^^'^^' ^"'^^'hji'iK^' program. We want to keep it 
a preS^g^ious thing {it least ^Jovernment-wide; we're hoping thin^ 
agenciek ynW aUo adopt the program internally for themselves but ' 

what we con.siddr one of the real problem areas,' the 
Ar ^"f ^^-l'V"^tt'^ory in which special training has to take place. 

Ut coursle, we do massive amounts of training 

M.S. OAKAEi. Can I just interrupt you for 1 minute? When did yorf 
start the program? I'm not skeptical by nature, but isn't it true 
that you just put out your release 2 days ago? Can it possibly be 
that we inspired you by the announcement of these hearings? 

Dr. Dkvink. Well, I can just show the committee,. I'd be happy to 
do— all the steps that we've taken over the la.st year or more to go 
through the projfe^of setting this plan up and to do it in the best 

X W '^nd to hayeV-K!? best person in charge of doing it, and it takes 

AA- "'coordination. and, a. lot of time. I'm glad that it's out now. 
Ms. Oakar. I am^^lad it is, too. Let me ask you this question. Is 
It our understanding, and correct us if we are wrong, that for the 
past 2 years you have failed to deliver reports to Congress on the 
Federal equal opportunity program ixs required by the Civil Service 
Reform Act of 197H. This program is designed to encou^rage affirma- 
tive,action. <j 

Have you delivered the reports; and if you have not, why have • 
you not? / , » 

Mi\ Mink I appreciate you asking that question, because I 
would Ijke to publicly thank Congres.sman Hoyer, who is in the 
room, for bringing that to my attention at a hearing last Thursday 
that those reports had not been submitted. 

I. went back to 0PM somewhere around 1, and I told them that if 
those reports were not up to Congress by 12 the next day, that they • 
were going to hav^ to answer to me for it. They got up that day. I 



I 



92 

a|)()l()gi/e foi' it. It was a bureaucratic snalu within my organiza- 
tion, J 

I take lull Wlame lor it. I apologize. But soon ay 1 hear'd it, I 
got it up to you. ' 

Ms. Oakah. Well, \ accept your apology, and I am sure that Con- 
gressman H(\y,er and others do also. 

Hu^ Dr. Devine^. you sec the problem. The perception that you 
are bein^ fair to Pederal employees has b(»en discolored, Rerha[!)s it 
was an hone^^t mistak(\ We will accept that lor the record. 

It is my understanding 4s well,'^ though, ^hat OPM has discontin- 
ued* a Ibrm that would ask applicants about their race, sex, and 
ethnicity. Som(» felt that this was a Ibrm that would give^pPM a 
systematic method ol* collecting data on alFirmative action. 

Why havt.» you discontinueci that Ibrm, how do you really 'know 
who you are hiring? ^ 

Mr. Dkvink. Exactly for the reason that you mentipned in your 
^question. And that is that it does not provide systematic data; 40 
percent according to the figures that we have, of people do not fill 
oiit that form. And that ranges from zero in the quality-assurance 
specialist's category, only 16 percent of psychologists fill it out, 29 
percent of housing project mahagers. For some, it goes up much 
higher. 

But the overall average is only about a (iO-percunt completion 
rate. And I can tell you as a otifson \Vho is ce'rtified at the top level 
of proficiency in survey analysis by Syracuse University and has 
appeared in court as an expert witness on 5?urvey technology, and 
taught in the graduate school at the University of Maryland for \\\ 
years on this ^iubject, Ihut uaythiog-Avitii a 40r.pemint nonresponse 
rate is nc^ft statistically usable. 

Second, we still, of course, continue to collect that information 
through our central personnel data fije which does give us an accu- 
rate or relatively accurate reporting system to collect what the law 
requires. And that is a comparison betweerv Federal Government 
employment ^nd private-sector employment among different 
grdups. * ' ; 

We arc*' doing precisely what the law requires us to do hi that 
area. And I would like to 

Ms. Oakak. But if the private sector is your benchmark, thc'n the 
practice? appear to be even more unfair as judged by some of the 
statistics. Women in the jprivate sector make less than they do in 
the Federal sector by a few pennies^ 

Why would you use them as your avenue of comparison? 

Mr. Devink. "fhat is not mine, th^t i« the law. 

Ms. Oakar. Do you feel that you have any role of advocacy in 
this as head of an agency that is responsible to civil servants? 

Mr. Dkvink. Sometimes when I exercis^ a little discrjetion, I get 
slapped down f)y Congress. 

Ms. Oakar. Well, I can assure y(^u that you .would not be slapped 
dcTWn if you tried to work harder for pay equity for women. 
^ Mr. Devink. Madam Chairman, I would like to — 

Ms. O^rrtAR. I would be your friend and protector. 

Mr. DE%yE, Thank you. I would like to read a letter t!hat I had 
forwardedlo me by Congressman Anthony Beilenson. 

Ms. Oakar. Beilenson from California. 



ERIC 



9/ 



Mr. Dkvink. Hc^ sent iiie a letter fronr'an individual, and F would 
like to quote some of that to you. It says: 

I ani a Itos AnKelcs Poslal oniployeo, and I iVt*! iny civil riK^^ts havt» btvn violated 
by inj i»nij)l()yVr. Tuesday, January 17th, I was directed to to Rooiti to tyke an 
examination and fill out a ibrni. I did not feel grateful lor nor a})preciate the deHni- 
lion of black on this lorin 

We were not inlbrrTie.d in advaiKV that thv (piestionnaire was K<)inK ^'du' place. 
Why not? Instead it was sprung on us [j4acln^' niost of us in a state of shock, as rac(-j 



As rny elected onicial, l would cipprecitite any interest or hel|) that you could give 
me re^^arding this matter 

Now I do not Rnow.what the answer to that is. But I will tell you 
that I have difficulty 1'esponding to that letter. I think that this is 
a very, very corhplex subject area in which some people fec^l that 
their civil rights are threatened., 

I can understand soiiieone, especially in a minority group, who 
would feel intimidated by checking a box on a form when they are 
going to take an examination to get 'in, and wonder if that is not 
going' to be held against them. 

So 1 have concer^is at that level, too. But the basic problem ft 
anything v^ith a 4()-percent nonresponse rate cannot be very accu- 
rate. And maybe a lot of that response rate is people who feel in- 
timidated by that process, and feel that their civil rights are being 
abridged, 

And we get the data in the central personnel' dc'ita file for em- 
ployees in any event. So I think th^t we have the useful. data, and 
the data required by the law. So thfi;^ is why we made the decision 
not to go ahead with that form. 

-Ms.- Qakak, But you^y that .you have made a concerted effort to 
have the data, so that you would know who is applying for these 
executive positions that you are going to reach out to try to recruit 
more women? ' 

Mr. Dkvink. The law says, and I believe cofrectly, and that is one 
of the concerns that I have with these record requirements in gen- 
eral, the law says that our job is to do outreach efforts. That is the 
law. And that is what we are 'doing, and that is what the agency is 
doing. ^. ^* 

We can do better, we should do a lot better, but we are reaching 
out. That is the critical* part of the program, not filling fcfrms out 
which is simply informatory. And it is interesting in fa^t that 
nobody noticed that for^^lmost 2 years. And I apologize, I did not, I 
should have known about it, too. Do these reports really do a lot oT 
good? Is not the important thing that the agencies and 0PM are 
out* there trying to recruit people in? That is the critical part, it 
seenvs to me. 

Ms. Qakar. That is the critical part. If you do not study the prob- 
lem to see whel'e it is, how are you going to.kri\)w whether you 
shyuld be doing it? 

Mr. Dkvink. We do it from the'centraJ personnel data file. That 
is^how we^>fiow. We compare it agairxst^the private sector, which is 
the comparison that the law says we sjtiould make. 

Ms. Oa^cak. Dr. Devine, you know and I know that this adminis- 
-tration is not an advocate for pay equity: That is why wfe are trying 
to force to do it now. 

Mr. Devink. I do not buy that. 



35-003 0-84-7 




- ' Ms. Oakar. You do not buy that? 

Mr.tDKviNK.'^'We had Democratic candidates here saying that 
they are going to study the factor evaluation system. We have a 
President who is already studying it. We are ahead of it. 

Ms. Oakar. You are studying it. When you heard about this 
hearing, you decided to study it; and that is when you put out your 
press release: You did not want to be embarrassed. But I do not 
buy the fact that you are advocates, and we know you are not. And ' 
we hope that you do better. We think that it is impontmit. 

Mr. Hoy A ^ ^ 

%lr. HoYKR. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Doctor, first let roe observe^thatvl was very pleased to read on 
page 17-v the last Jull paj^agraph in which you deal with pay com pa- - 
rability generally, where you indicate that we have had difficulty 
in adhering to that principle. * " * 

I presume that by this paragraph you do accept the fact that we 
are sul^staxitially behind in meeting pay comparability generally, 
am I correct? 

Mr. Dkvink. You know the answer to that question. No, I do not. 
Mr.'HoYKR. Well, then my next question is what do you mean by 
that paragraph?' 

Mr. Dkvink. I mean that we have had difficulty defining in an 
operational way what comparability is. 1 have my view of what it 
should be. The {)resent process cranks out a number that one could 
take as valid and some do. And there are those who thiw that that 
is not high enough to represent the difference between the private 
and the public sectors. But that to me is an operational or measur- 
ing questioft rather than a conceptual one that we agree_ that 
should be companvble. . 

In fact, you may remember at that luncheon that we had at the 
Washington Post, many were surprised to hear Mr. Blaylock and 1 
agree on the principle of comparability* The problem is operationa- 
li/.ing it and measuring it. And there we differ profoundly, 

Mr. HoYKR. 1 understand that. I am looking forward to your 
study. 

How is that going Have we let the contract? 
Mr. Dkvink. On pay? 

Mr. HoYKR. On what you are going to be giving us in a report? 

Mr. Dkvink. I believe it has. I did not come prepared for that 
today, but 1 believe that it has been let. ^ 

JMr. HoYKR. All right. Doctor, let me g6 back to your statement, if 
I might. On page 2 of your statement, you refer to section 2801 of 
title V, principle 8. "Equal pay should be provided for work of 
equal value with appropriate Consideration of both national and 
local rates paid by enaployers in the private sector." 

And Ms. Oakar, the Chair, correctly noted, and we have had tes- ^ 
timony to the extent that the private sector is from a comparative 
standpoint further behind in terms of equal f)ay for. work of compa- 
rable value. 

If that is the case, do you believe that the language of principle 3 
included in title V,^section 2301 ought to be ^mended? 
Mr. Devine. To strike out the private sector? 
Mr. HoYER. To the extent that we accept the principle that the 
^ private sector is further behind than the Federal sector, if by only 



t ^ 

pennies, but by porctMitaK^' points. Is it then an anomaly .to relate 
us to a less successful system il" in fact tlu\objective is cofnparable 
pay for work of comparable value? 

Mr. Dkvwk. I befieve that thc^ intention of that section was by 
the blue' collar unions to insure that althouKh the Civil Service 
Reform Act itself ..did not deal very ^ directly with the blue collar 
wage system, we recognize that there are national and local rates, 
national under the general schedule, and local under the blue 
collar wage schedule system. 

I think that is ihe purpose of that clause^ in there rather than 
making a compamon to the private sector. Because, of course, both 
of those systems in theory are related bc'ick to comparability with 
the private sector. 

Mr. HoYKR. Do I understand you to say then that it is a geo- 
graphical differentiation as opposed to a job-by-job evaluation of* 
value placed "on it by the private sector? - 

Mr. Dkvink. One of the problems with the principles there, in 
my ()[)inion.-is they should have listc^d about 12 or M They list sev- 
eral bracketed within some of the numbering systems. I think that 
that is the intent of that. And, of course, the V^'inciple does not 
ref^^r directly to the classification systems which are more directly 
dealt with in 510.1 and .5105. . . ^ 

And there it is supposed to be an. internally justified system 
rather than an externally justified system. It is important to re- 
member that the classification system is in theory ir>depen^ent of 
the pay system. Now we know in fact that that is not true. 

But th(^ idea is to separate the one from the other, and to have 
an objective classification system that is set independently of pay. 
Of course, general schedale grades do hnve a pay" set to them. But 
they ^a re basically adjusted by an iAcrea.se factor rather than a 
change in the basis structure of the pay system. 

Mr. HoYKR. Let me ask you about the. fa'ctors, the nine factors, 
that are included in 5104, is that correct? 

Mr. Dkvink. .No, sir. The nine factors are included in the factor 
evaluation primary staYidard, which came out of the law, and was' 
subniitted to Congress, .because it was required to under the law. 
But it is not^preci^eljLin the law. The faw does list the general 'de- 
scriptive levels of the gfade ranges. I believe that is r)102. 

Mr, IIoYKK. All right. I am informed we have a vote. There wa^ 
not a buzzer, bi^t apparently there was a vote. There are two bells 
indicated up there. ^ 

' Can you tell me what factor three is? I understand, I think, the 
^other nine factors, but I am not sure that I understand factor 
three, guidelines. 

What do guidelines mean? 

Mr. Dkvink. Guidelines mean the degree* of detail that individ- 
uals have to operate under in order to perform their jobs. The 
, broader and less speciflted the guidelines, the more responsibility a 
person has for interpreting in between the spaces. 

Mr. HoYKR. All right. I have some othec- questions. But because 
of the vote, I will desist. Madam Chair, Tharrk you for allowing me 
to participate. . 

Ms.. Oakar. Thank you. I just want to make one quick observa- 
tion on the kind of exampieslhat we are discussing. Now most sec- 



•9 



9() ^ 



I 



retaries are women, and most managers are male. She is paid ac- 
cording^ to the grade level of her boss, not for the performance of 
what she does. This is the kind of thing that we are talking about, 
Doctor. While we applaud the fact that you are going to study the 
problems oar legislation calls for a plan of action. And that is what 
we are going to be expecting once we pass the legislation. 
Thank you very much for being here. 

(The following responge to written questions was receivefl'^for the 
record: I > 



/ 




. 97 ' 

0PM RESPONSES TO PAY^EQUITY^QUESTIONS , 



1, O'"* I am pleased that 'you havt? undertaken the ^study yoj announced in your 
) \ testimony.' When idd you anticipate completion of the study? Mow fjany 
■ > " staff are 'involved in the study? 

/ 

Did evidence of sex di scrimation prompt'you to take this action? If • not, 
what caused you'to iniH^Jte the study? ■ * . 



Would you b^e'Willin^ to shaVe the fi.ndings arid 'rot o<nii»erxId t iun& wflh the 
Subcommittee? I would also appreciate your briefing niy staff as soon as 
possible. ' • 

A, W^ expect to complete the study, of the stancftirds development process 
and its relationship to wage ,determi nation Ijefore the end of the year. 
All of the members of our Off fee of Standards Development are working 
on the project, ' » ' . 

Evidence of sex di scrimi natjon was not the r#5on for my initiating the 
• study. Rather, i deducted a full revTew of standards development policies 
and operations was overdue, since the framework . for the current systgn 
was established over sixty years ago. Although the current system 
insures that Fe<feral- positions are treated consistently and eqii1;tably 
enough to meet with our legal obligations, we will investigate .whether 
we c^ mak'e the process fairer, more effective and more efficfent. 

*We fipi be happy to share the results of our study with the subcommittee. 
An initial 'briefing with subccmmfttee staff was held on April 18, 1984. 

2. Q. What other aictions or studies has 0PM undertaken, if any, to assure 
jihit its current job evaluation systems minimize the impact of systanjc 
bias? ' 

Cince again referring ^to your testimony, you cited the National Academy 
^of Sciences report and stated that the characteristics v^ich the MAS 
believed to pre-requi si tes for a "canparable worth" job evaluation 
System are essentially the same under the current Federal job evaluation 
^system. ' 

It is alsj? true that the NAS set forth optional statistical adjustments 
"that could be used in a job evaluation plan to compensate for inherent, 
',-sex-basecl d1 scri mi nation-. Has the 0PM sought to apply these, or ary 
other, statistical adjustments to the Federal system? 

^. Although we have not evaluated the Fed&ral Goverrment ' s job evaluation 

/ ' / •» system specifically for sex bias, the entire system has been thoroughly 
y exami ned several times by indedpendent bodies and no charges of discrim-^ 

^ i nation have ever been uwide* Extensive evaluations were carried out by 

^ the Rockefeller Commission ( 1975), agency personnel di/ectors and chiefs 



ERJC i 02 



.-if 



98 



of class1fi£ati6R (19B1), the Grace Commission (1983), and the fiational^ 
Academy or^Public Administration Cl?83). Since our system is so open 
and public, we believe any serious bj*as..would have been ide nti f 1 ed d^jring 
these e*tensive'M nvest igati ons, ^ ' ' . • 

We are taking action in relj^ted aretfs to ensure that the present trend 
of women's movement into higher payi*ng occuf^tlons is encouraged, We 
h^ve taken action to reduce credential! ng, which works against women 
and mi nor i ties in hiring^and advancement. We have also established 
the Women's Fxecutive Leadersh'ip Program to* direct mure dtlenliun 
tov«rd the systematic provision ma n<igeiner>t ,devel opment uf woinen i 
grade levels 9-12. (See our^response to question 3~C,) 

It is incorrect to say that ^he NAS report proposed "optional statisti- 
cal adjustments that coul d be used ^ n a job eva lualion pla n to caspe nsate 
\for inherent, sex-ba?ped discrimination,'' To describe these as ^^pptional' 
suggests that the Statistical adjustments are well developed a ni ready 
to use at an employer's option. This is simply not true. The NA^Treport 
did outli ne two experimental statistical approaches but also /cautioned 
as follows: - . 

"Wiewish to make clear at the outset that we'discuss these^ apt roaUies 

_ - i _ _ . ^ _ , . . . , . They 

entail 



becaixse of their potential and not because of their proven valu 
are at present completely untried, and their application woul 
the solution of rnany theoretical and practical problems of measlrei^nt. 
There is also a serious question as to whether the quality of the data 
generated by job evaluation plans in current use is adequate to sustain 
* t^e ki nds of statistical adjustments we describe. Moreover, there 1s 
cons.iderabje debate regarding the interpretation of the statistics 
generated by these adjustments (specifically, regression coefficients), 
especially given imperfect measurement," 

The NAS staff concluded: 

"Hence, It would sean prudent to exercise considerable caution in apply- 
in<f»^em, attending carefully to both tiie statistical issue discussed 
above and to substantive concerns--the possibility that sorite workers 
may perceive new inequities as replacing old ones, that to avoid such 
perceptions may^require a substantial increase in the wage bill for an 
'enterprise,, and that statistical adjustment procedures ofterv generate 
tension between the need to eliminate discrimination for groups in the 
aggregate and the need to protect the rights of individuals," 

/ • • 

It must be kept i n mi nd that >*hat may be optional for private 'onployers 
is not so for 0PM. Any changes must be proven consistent with the 
complex requi.reinents uf law, 

I du not believe it is appropriate to use the Federal work force as the 
. "guinea-pig" in testing these very'*experimental and highly specula,tive 
statistical procedures. Further, I do not t)elieve that'a ^echa nical , ^K^^^'^^'^^''^ 
post facto percentage adjustment of pay for certai n Jobs is jtJlft'^'^t 
or the effective way to deal witK instances of percelxe^V'p^'' i na^jji ty. 



1. 



erIc 



lO-.t 



,99 



The better approach , 'iind or>e whkh will yield reilly long-term Improve- 
ments, Is to el 1m1,natj& unnecessary restrictions on entry to occupations 
. . so that ^]\^ potential applicants can compete. As I IndlcS'ted in my 

testimony, )P#e are doj ng this by working to remove unnecessary restric- 
tions on e/itry to Federal jobs, such as the Ruction of excessive 
credent 1 aTis4(ni, 

3a, Q. The f acto^evaluation systeni was designed to replicate the results 
of the preW)us job evaluation system,^ which was rooted in the Classi- 
fication Acts, of 1923 and. 1949, What ev'idence .dD you have ^hat FES 
standards do not reflect the pre-exi sti ng biases? 

y ' 
A, The Factor Evaluation System , (FES) does Indeed 1 ncorporate the values 
expressed in the Classification Act of 1949 U.S.C. 5104); however, 
there is no basis to assume these underlyi ng val ues are biased. In 
fact, the 1 ntent of the 1949 statute was clearly nondiscriminatory; it 
provi'ded for "equal pay for substantially equal work," The 1923 stat- 
ute, from' which the 1949 law evolved, provided for ''*equal pay- for 
equal work, irrespective* of sex." Since the basic statiJtes were de- 
signed to be nonbiased there is no reason to assume the? FES standards 
are biased. Yet, we will look eit this issue In our review to be sure 
they ar^ not biased. > 

3b. Q, 'what steps, if any, does 0PM t^ke^^o ascertain that sex-based wage 
discrimination is not a factor iifi the evaluation, kystems used in 
private sector firms surveyed by the Bureau of Labor Statistfcs to 
obtain job matches for the Federal pay-setting process? 

In othpr words, if a private sector firm discriminates against women 
then this data will be reflected in the FederaV wage-stftting process, 
tai nti ng ^the entire -system? 

A, Under the law, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS.) in *the Departmerit 
of Labor conducts a survey of private sector pay that we are required 
r to use as the basis for comparing Federal pay, with private sector pay 

for the same levels of work. This survey does not relate to the 
standards process; however, we are concerned with the representive ness 
of the survey. 0PM believes that ihe survey, by covering only a smal] 
portion of the private sector economy, produces substantial ly. hfgher 
pay rates than a more comprehensfve survey would. By diaki ng the survey 
broader and- more representative of the entire non-Federal latfbr market, 
we win be eliminating any possible bias in the survey's choice of 
jobs and establishments that are covered^ 




100 



3c. Q, 0PM statistics Indicate that the average salaries of Federal Civilian 
males exceed those of females. To what extent are these differences 
attributed to differences In' longevity, educactlon, experience, or 
other factors? How much, . .In your op1r>ion, are the fIfferenCes attribu- 
table to discrimination?" » 

A, There Is no question that differences In longevity, education and 
experience contribute to the difference in average sal ary^ between men 
and woRienv 1 would like to point out, however, that although the 
average grade of men is higher than that of women, the average grade 
of women has risen Over 4 times faster than that of men. SI nee- 1974, 
average grade of, men rose 4 %, of women, y %. 

Although women are steadily moving 1 nt(5 higher payl ng " adml n1 stratlve 
and professional jobs, they are still relative "newcomers'* as compared 
to men. Overall statistics on average salary reflect the differences 
between men and womJ'! In work force participation. For example. In the 
GS and equivalent gA? grade grouping, women held about 30% of the jobs 
in 1983 compared to 19% in 1974. Women held 10% of Hhe GS 13-15 and 
equivalent jobs in 1983 as conpared to 5% 1 n 1974. Other data highlight 
the 4l1fferences between the backgrounds of. men and women. For example, 
as of Sept^ber 30, 1983, the aver^^e length of service for men (full-, 
time permanent) was 15.3 years and, for women (full-time permanent), 
11.3 years. The m#1an for women Is 3.2 years and for men 6.6 years 
compared to 2.5 and 3.8 respectively for the private sector. 'Women in 
Federal service are also younger than their male counterj^arts; as of 

. September 30, 1983, the average age of men was 42.3; the average age 
of wanen, 38.8. Turnover rates also vary by sex. For example; -^le 
have actuarial data which show that 23.5% of men vrith less than 5 
^ years of Federal service left-the Govermjent and withdrew their con- 

v^^trlbutlons to the Civil Service Retl rement^ System; 54.5% of wOmen were 
fin the same category. < 

We are dotng 'several things to retain women who would otherwise l&ave 
the Federal work force. Family responsi b1 Itl es i and an Intere'st in 

I acquiring further education are reasons women often cite for leaving. 

' By working par;t-t1me, women can pursue these goals and still -keep their 

jobs. Progress in expanding part-time employment has remained steady 
and we have recently Issued gjjidanee t-o agencies encouraging them to 
continue efforts to accommodate employees who wish to convert from 
full-time to part-time schedules. We expect further Improvements in 
part-time opportunities 1n administrative and professional positions. 
There have already been notable Increases In the number of part-timers 
serving In professional positions, e.g., an Increase of 60% in the 
number at GS-13 and above since 19^9. 

Another policy Initiative also affects a large group of women--those 
who go abroad as part of military or foreign service families. Under 
a new Executive order Issued by this Administration, dependents v*io 
complete 24 months of service worVlngHn overseas positions outside 
the competl'tlve service can qualHx.for di recV appol ntment in the 
system upoh their return to the U .S. — /Ch estlmrfted 6,000 to 10,000 
dependertts will be able to qualify under this Vogram. Further, em- 
ployees who leave their Jobs early In their careers to go overseas 
with their families will no longer be penalized for their break in 
Federal service. Under our new policy, dependents who leave to ac- 
conpaoy their spouses overseas will be eligible for the full 3-year 
period of reinstatement eligibility after their return to the U.S. 



ERIC 



10 o 



101 



Q. In AFSCIdE et a1 v. State of Washi ngton et al , tne Cou^lQ^^ncI that 
discriminatory impact was sufficient to find a violdtion of lilie VI I 
of the Civil Rights Act. Plantlffs In State of Washington denmnst rated 
-an average 20 percent gap between the pay of men and women. According 
to recent data, a qap of approximately $10,000 per year exists between 
the average annualized salaries of men and women worki nq for the Federal 
Govermient. Some leading experts believe that a similar showing to 
State of Washington could readily be made with regard to the Federal 
Government's pay structure. ' ^ 

Given these circumstances, aren't you concerned that the Federal syston 
would not withstand the scrutiny of litigation? If not, canygu tell 
us specified) ly why you believe the Federal program is free of systanic 
wage-based sex JM^imi nation, .when, the empirical data and work force 
statistics woj^^^Kn to indicate otherwise? 

A, Without nec^l^BFy accept 1 ng all of the premises of your question, I 
would note tWi there is a significant difference between the 20 percent 
wage differential found to exist in the State of Washington's pay system 
and the $10,000 difference that you assert exists between the anojdl 
salaries of men* and women who work for the federal government. The wage 
differential i n AFKME v. State of Washi ngton was a cpp between the 
wages of pr edani nately male and pr edo*iii na tely female jobs which were 
hel(Pto be comparable. On the other hand, the $10,000 figure represents 
a difference in the average earnings of men and women in the Federal 
work force. Thus, the average earnings of women in Federal service 
could be lower than men's because of the background 'factors discussed 

* above. It Is also true that, women have l^ss seniority, and seniority 
, currently has a disproportionate Impact on Federal salary levels. Our 
proposed reguUtory reforms to wi thin-grade Increases and RiF's would 
have reduced some of this impact. 

I would also stress that there are critical differences between the 
systems used in the State of Washington a Dd the Federal Civil Service 
to set pa^. The State of. Washington based, its wages on eUbor^t« 
surveys of labor markets. On the other hand, as I testified before the 
Committee, the Factor Evaluation System used by the Federal Govermient 
is not>t1ed diectly to market factors. Instead, it assigns rtjmerical 
rating-s to positions based on an analysis of the nine factors erumerated 
r 1 n my testimony. These factors focus only on the duties of the job; the 
sex of the person performing those duties is wholly Irrelevant to the 
classi fication process. The pay ^range for each position under^he 
General Schedule depends upon the position's classification, Because of 
the differences betv#een the two systems, w do not believe Jud(je Tanner's 
analysis in State of Washi ngton can be applied to the Federal Govern- 
ment*s process for setting pay. , ' ^ 

Although there are always risks In litigation, we believe the Factor 
Evaluation System is protected ^ th e Equal Pay Act's fourth affirmative 

^ defense, '*any other factor other than sex." (The Bennett Amendment/ 
1 ncorporat.ed thi s defense 1 nto Title VII.) This af f 1 rmati ve defense • 

< was established because Congress wanted to protect bona fide job evalu- 
ation systetns such as the Factor Evaluation System. County of Washington 
V. Gunther , 452 U.S. 161, 171 (1981). We are confident that the Factor 
tvaluatlon System is such a bona fide system because the occupant's sex 
plays no role In determining a position's classified tU)r^ ' 



<n>> 



I 'Should note that many legal experts bell evQ ' Judge Tanner erred 

1 n State of Wash! ngton when he applied disparate Impact analysis In a 
sex-based wage discrimination case under Title VII. The Suprftne Court 
• itself suggested th*t disparate Impact analysis may ^e Incompatible 
with the Cqual Pay ActS fourth afflnnatWe defense, ^'a ny other factor 
other than sex," Gu nther » 45? U.S. at. 170. Other' courts have said 
that only Intentional wage discrimination Is covered by Title VII. 
See, e.g. „ Pleme r v, Parsons-Gl Ibane , 713 F.2d 1127 (5th. Cir. 1983); 
Connecticut State Empfpyees Ass'n, v, Connecti cut , 31 E^ip. Prac. Dec. 
H 33,5?a (0. Conn, 1983); Power v. l^d rry County , 539 F. Supp. 7?l, 726 
(W.D. Mich. 1982). ^ > 

^ 5', Q. Once again referrmj to your earWer testimony and your statanent 
f that the final touchstone- tS setting job worth .must be^ the market. 
If market rates perpetuate trS^ltlonal biases, hov(, cag F^ederal objec- 
^ tlves of Internal equl^y"^ not tonfllct vrith external alignment? 

What do you think of a practlxe that has been negotiated In some States 
and cities, such as Ml i*ine3<)ta , Connecticut, and San- Jose, California, 
where "pay t"<iui ty " Increases were given to employees In predominantly 
female job categories such as nurses and legal secretaries to partially 
compensate them for .systenic wage-based sex discrimination? Do you 
believe that buch a practice could be Implemented in the FeJeral Govern- 
^ ment for similar occupations? 

A. V It is not clear that market rates perpetuate biases; in fact, where 
d1 set. imi nat ion exists, the workings o{ the market tend to break, down 
societal biases. As I said in response to question 2, I do not believe 
• a mechanical, ex post facto [Percentage adjustment of pay for certain 
jobs is the way to deal with instances of percei vedy pay ine:^uity. 
In th? cases you cite, the governments did not have standards systems 
like the Federal Gover nnent ' s. 

6. Q. What is OPM's current position on the appropriateness of the Federal 
Government using multiple job evaluation systems? In v]ew of the fact 
that the Federal - Governnent uses several different job evaluation 
systems, do you beMeve all jobs are appropriately aligned ir^rnally? 

A. The Federal ^Governjienti uses di f f erent • j-ob evaluation and pay settir>g 
systems for General Schedule pos1 tions a nd for Federal Wage System 
jobs. Each system was established by. different statutes at different 
times, under differing circumstances. As I indicated 1 n my April 3, 
1 984 testimony, we are now comparing the strengths and weaknesses of 
t the Federal Wage System with those of the General Schedule a nd we are 
examining the rationale for mdintaining these distinct systens. We 
believe an administrative review is a nwre pruderrj^^a ns by which to 
evaluate the complex differences which exist iMder these two very 
different systems. 



ERIC 



1 ^ .» 



103 



Which, if .any, Federal job evaluation systans are ''canparable worth" 
systems? How do the systems achieve this? (If some are and some 
aren.'t) what actions have you undertak*>Q to correct the 'systems?- 

The statutes governing the job evaluation s^ttems administered by 0PM 
don-t refer to "comparable worth". In onactintj the most rec^t major 
revi sions to civil service law (P. L . 95-454), Congress added-^vthe 
"merit principles" (S U.S.C. ?^01). the third Merit Principle stafes 
that "equal pay should be provided for work of equal value, wlth^ppro- 
priate consideration of ^th national and local rates paid by employers 
In t'he private sector, and appropriate incentives and recognition shouJd 
be provided'for excellence in performance". 

Ir\ addition, the statute ^governing the General Schedule classification 
system (S U.S.C. 3101) requires that "^the principle of e<^ual pay for 
substantially equal work" be followed in determining the rate /)f basic 
pay which an employee will receive. Prevailing rate sy*;tttn jobs are ' 
paid on the statutory principle that "there will be equal pay for 
substantially equal work for all prevailing rate employees who are 
working under similar conditions of employment in all ageocies within 
the same local wage area", 0PM administers the General Schedule and 
the Federal Wage System coexistent with these statutory principles. 

Why is the average salary of a social insurance claims ex^jmi ner , in 
whiiJi women outrumber men by a ratio of 6 to 4, nearly $5,000 less 
than a veterans claims examiner, v^ich is a predominately mcfle occupa- 
tion? Why is the average salary of ^ dental hygienist, which is over- 
whelmingly female dominated, more than $4,000 a year less than a sign 
painter, which is equally fT'-wle dominated? 

^The c lassi f icat ion sta niards for social insurance and vott?rans claims 
examiner positions contaVn similar criteria for grading at levels from 
^GS-5 through GS-12. AnyVe su 1 1 i ng difference in average grade level 
will be du3 to a rumber of variables. For example, in an.acj^ncy where 
y employets^ypically begin their careers as claims exarniners and then 
^move into hjgher level management positions, the average gr-ade of 
claims examiners will be lower than in an agency v^ere there is less 
tur never in cla ims exami ner posi tions. Thi s is because the f i rst agefKy 
win havev more trainees on the roU^ arid less journeyman level claims 
examiners. In addition, the .nature of operatl ons Jiay differ in v^arlous 
I agencies resulting In different distributions of grade levels within a 
- particular occupation. ♦ ^ 

Dental hygienlst and sign painter positions are evaluated under two 
sepaH:ate systems, the General Schedule and the. Federal Wage System 
respectively, These^ systems are mandated by separate statutes which 
differ in concept, ^For example, the General Schedule operates under 
national pay rates, v^ile the Federal Wage System is a locality-oriented 
pay systen ^ased on prevailing rates. Because of the different statu- 
tory bases for the two systems, we have not correlated then but have 
managed each system fairly and equitably. As noted in my answer to 
question 6, we are studying l^e relationship between the Federal Wage 
System and the General Schedule System. 



7. Q. 



L Q. 




W4 



- 9^'- Q«. You seem to^ indicate in your test'lmony that much of the wage gap in 
the Feden,al Government is due tp the overclassi f ic»t1on of positions 
occupied by males. What d^ta do you have to suppor^ this assertion? 
Are any positions, in your opinion, underclassi f i ed? If so, wiiich ones? 

A, 1^ testimony did^not indicate that *"much of the wage gap in th.P Federal 
Cover fine nt. i s due to the overclassi fication of positions occupied by 
mal^s." The poi.rrt I was making was that if ywj assi/ne sex bias, you 
' must a 1*50 assume sex bias in the 4ppVication of standards by agency 

I classifiers. However, the data we have exami ned- thus far would appear 
to' indicate otherwise. Similarly, the MSPB study, Breaki ng Trust 
suggests that "reverse" discrimination may be the mOre releva nt i ssue. 

10. Q, It his been stated that under Lhe FES system high points are assigned 
to positions thaj: reqwire coVitacts yith high-rarking officifls, ^There- 
fore, a nurse who muit deal primarily, with, coworkers and who must 
assist, patients and th'eir familtes under great" stress will receive 
\ fewer poiqts than a. 'hospital administrator who uses the same skills. 

The end result is that typicaMy "female" jobs contirue to be given 
lower grade status. Why is the system skewed" in this ma*nner? Do you 
^ thiic this i s ,unf ai r especi al ly in light of your admission that there 

is a "significant judgmental factor" in job evaluation? Can we count 
on you^to correct thi s's,1 tuat i on? 

A. Your question appiiars to Imply th^at under FtS points are assigned on 
the basis of the rank of those co/ltacted without re^rd to the purpose 
of the contacts. On the conti^iry, both the purpose of the contact 
(Factor 7) and the kind of contact (Factor 6) must be evaluated together, 
* Factor 6 considers the. subject of the .contact as well as the difficulties 

involved in making the initial contact or communicating with those 
conta(^ted. Factor 6>also considers the setting in which the contact 
is made, e,g,, the degree to which the employee and those contacted 
recognize their respective roles. Factor 7 considers such activities 
as exchanges of factual i nforniation and negotiations over controversial 
issues, J 

Thus a nurse who deals with patients and their families does not neces- 
-sarlly receive fewer FES points for personal contacts than a hospital 
admi ni strator who deals with high ranking officials. For example, an 
administrator who comes in contact with high level Government officials 
who use the hospital's facil1,ties would not receive the highest level 
of points under Factor 6 because the contact is not difficult to initiate 
and there is no difficulty in communicating, 

I 

The classification law and the Factor Evaluation System distinguish 
positions on the basis of leViel of difficulty, responsibility, and 
qualifications required by the wor'k. 



/ 



erJc • yi'^^^^ 



lOf) 

Ms. 6akak. We hiwi^ two iiidre -witnesses. We have Ms, Fiorina 
Koole, Vho is with the Communications Workers of America. And 
we alsolhave Ms. Sf)nia Johnson, who is a candidate for President 
from tne Citizen^ Party. And we will be right back to hear from 
oiiV two witnesses. 

I Recess. I * 

Ms. Dakar. The committee will come t(x order. We will hear at 
this time, from Ms. Klom^e Koole, who is tne assistant to the exeC; 
utive vice-president of thi^ Cbmmunica^ons Workers of America. 

Florine, we are very happy to have you. As a former member of 
the Comm^unications Workers of Amenca, .1 am very happy to have 
•my union represented. So you may -proceed in whatever way is 
most comfortable. . , . j ' 

"STATKMKNT OF FLOIUNK KOOhK. ASSISTANT TO KXK( I TlVK < 

VK K PKKsn)F:m\ c()mmi Ni(:Atik)Nsl woitkKUs of amkrk a 

Ms, Kooi.K^Thank you, Congrefeswoman Oal^ar. I thank yoa for 
this opportunity to testify on pay. 'equity, one -of the most critical 
economic issues today. But first of all, I would like to apologize to 
yoii for being late today. We spept more time- on Massachusetts 
Avenue than we really c'aredHo today. And I appreciate ^being 
given the opportunity to testify in spite of that; 

My^name 4s Plorine Koole. I am assistant to tHe CWA executive 
vice president in charge of collective bargaining. The Communica- 
tions Workers of America represent some ()r)(),00() workers in both 
the public and private sectors. About 55 percent of our members 
are women. 

CWA has been active in the pay equity arena for nearly a 
, decade. Most 'signif^ntly, we have implemented a comprehensive 
pay equity program within AT&T and the Bell System, a program 
which promises to end pay disparity for as many as 1 million work- 
ers in every State and locality across the Nation. 

We achieved this precedent setting program through the collec- 
tive bargaining process. Thus, it has been CWA s experience that 
litigation is only one, albeit sometimes necessary, approach to pay 
equity. My testimony today will focus on the collective bargaining 
alternative. 

Politicians in 19H4, searching for votes, have concluded that the 
gender gap is for real. They are right. But the gender gap extends 
far beyond the political arena. There is a very significant, very 
real, very harmful gender gap^in our factories, -offices, restaurants, 
hptels, and government^— in virtually every single place where 
. Americans work. 

This gender gap has nothing— and yet everything— to do with 
the gender gap discussed ^^y political pundits, because this gender 
gap is the huge disparity between wages paid* to women and to 
men. 

Women are segregated into low-paying, dead-end jobs. More than 
80 i)ercent of all women workers work in only 25 of 427 possible 
occupational titles. These wprkers are poorly paid. Working women 
earn less- than men in every job at every educational level. The 
rpedian wage for all full-time women workers was about $11,000, 
compared to $18,0Q0 for men. Three out of five working women 



lx\j 



10() 



earn less than $10, ()()() per year*. Only 1 percent earn more than 
$25,000 per year. . . , ' 

What lies beyond these statistics is the cold, hard fact of discrim- 
ination. As the National Academy of Sciences concluded, "the more 
an occupation is dominated by women, the less it pays.'* 

This conclusion — and the snaiTs pace action ^o make it obso- 
lete—are astounding. Not only is this. condition offensive for social 
^and moral reasons, but it is appalling for gut economic reasons: 
pay inequity represents a highly inefficient use of resources. 

When women are forced to work in a female ghetto, talent and 
skills are ignored and squandered. Turnover runs rampant. Health 
care costs rise for stress-related illnesses. This costs employers a 
lot— not only i;i terms of money but also the less tangible costs of 
lost producitivity, restricted organizational development and the 
like. ' 

But perhaps worst of all, with pay inequity, poverty bScomes en- 
trenched. It's no accident that poverty in America is rapdily be- 
coming solejy female poverty. It's no accident that by the year 
2000, allvpoor Americans will be women household heads and their 
children. 

This costs State, local, and Federal governments — and their tax- 
payers — a lot of money. As the U.S. Department of Labor points 
out in a recent study, if wives and female heads of households were 
paid the same wgges as similarly qualified men, about half of all 
families living in poverty would no longer be poor. 



CWA PROGRAMS 

CWA long has been active in the pay equity are^. We are on 
the Board of Directors for the Committee on Pay Equity. Wje work 
closely with academic experts in this field, including the National' 
Academy of Sciences, helping to develop job data, evaluation stand- 
ards and the like. CWA delegates to the midterm Democratic Con- 
tention in 1982 also authored, advocated, and successfully incorpo- 
rated a pay equity policy into the party's platform. 

These all are important steps toward equality. But what women 
workers need is action and concrete treatment of the problem. 

One of the single most'effective tools to overcoming job and wage 
discrimination is the organization of workers into unions. I am 
joined in this belief not only by other labor unions, but also by pol- 
icymakers and activists in this field. Recently, a Democratic con- 
gressional organization, in reviewing key 1984 election issues, said 
xm the comparable worth issue that women can effectively protect 
th^ rights and help guarantee unbiased job treatment through 
uniOTS. 

CwA's policies and programs bear this out. Many of our prece- 
dent-setting actions have set the standards for current and future 
pay equity activities. This same congressional paper pointed to our 
activities as an example of effective treatment. 

Much of CWA*s work on pay equity has involved the private 
sector. But the conditions and problems unfortunately are the s^gme 
whether one works for a private employer or a governmental unit. 

Our experience, therefore, has been universaily. instructive, and 
hopefully will help this subcommittee. A dec^e ago long before 

ill 



* 107 

comparable worth b((catiio a hot iaaue, C'WA .established a commit- 
tee to examine the ccmtent of Belf Sy^item jobs. 

The committee paid special attention to clerical jobs, many of. 
which were undervalued over the yea.rs through job segregation 
and Wage discrimination. The committee found three fundamental 
problems which led to discrimination: 

First, a lack of uniformity in job titles. A job function was cla*fesi- 
fied differently depending upon the location or division, Secorrd, an 
excessive number of job titles. And third, a too-narrow clustering of 
pay rates, especially for clerical workers, which meant that a 
Woman worker had to be promoted many times before she saw a 
substantial wa^e increase. 

These findings, taken to the bargaining table, led to several re- 
forms. Job titles Were streamlined, increasingjefficiencyr And the 
two largest job'classifications, containing hundreds of thousands of 
women workers, were significantly upgraded. 

Perhaps most signiTicant, these findings led ta our precedent-set- 
ting li)S() agreement with AT<ST to undertake a comprehensive 
comj)arabl,e worth program ^hich^ eventually could affect the Bell 
System s 1 million employees. 

The 19S0 national contract established a joint union-management 
job evaluation committee. Job evaluation is the. cornerstone of pay 
equity. Without effective research on existing job content and on 
the hiring, pay, and promotion practices, there can be no real 
movement toward ending discrimination. 

The joint committee established two key ground rules. One, that 
t^re had to be a carefully designed evaluaticji system to identify 
and score specific job factors. Two, -that employees could appeal the 
scoring, job description, and relative worth of their jobs. 

The committee then started its most critical task^documenting 
the work of AT&T employees. Fourteen test jobs representative of 
the race, sex, geographic, and occupational distribution of Bell 
workers were selected for indepth study. 

With the job studies, the committee began to devise a set of com- 
pensation factors and a scoring system to evaluate jobs. There is no 
question that it was difficult to incorporate the principles of pay 
equity into the compensation factors. The joint committee was 
fighting years of sex differentiation in both the Bell System and so- 
ciety at large. 

Fast job evaluation actually transferred biases into the wage set- 
ting process. The job evaluation group, therefore, selected and 
rheasured factors that applied equally to both *'men's" jobs and 
"women's" jobs. These factors, for exanfple, accounted both for the 
heavy physical demand present in male-oominated jobs and for the 
physical stress, fatigue, and mental demarxls evident in female- 
dominated jobs. 

The next step in this process involved testing the factors to purge 
the evaluation plan of any remaining biases. Recommendations for 
final across the board implementation were made in the 1983 col- 
lective bargaining session. 

With federally mandated divestiture splitting «up the Bell 
System, however, the AT(^T and CWA pay equity program has 
moved from the national level to the local level. Now CWA and 
each Bell Operating Co., as well as each AT&T unit, will imple- 



ad 

ERLC 



ment pay equity 1/hrgugh individual joint job evaluation commit- 
tees. 

CWA's experiences in the private sector taught us»a lot. I can't 
begin to catalog all the lessons but here are a few key items. 

One, the commitment by employers to comparable worth must be 
strong. All levels of management, from t|ie top down, must sincere- 
ly and actively work to elimj/iate discrimmation. Hesitation, indeci- 
sion, or incomplete commitment must be strongly discouraged and 
eliminated. 

Two, resources must be available. An effective program must be 
built on a solid foundation. Accurate data collection and job evalua- 
tion set the stage. New York State, recognizing this, has committed 
$500,000 to study pay inequity and $1 million tow^ird a planned re- 
organization. 

Three, there must be real auction in a timely matter. Lip service 
cannot continue. Studies must be started now and completed in a 
reasonable time, date certain. 

Four, most important, there must be labor-manageraent coopera- 
tion. Unilateral decisions by management will only resultMfl^a 
breakdown in the process. Workers should be involved from the 
start in evaluating jobs and developing job content n^asurements.^ 
Furthermore, there should be an appeals process to ensure workers 
are not frozen out. 

Labor and management can work together, as we have proven in 
our AT&T experience. But if real cooperation is not encouraged, 
the results will end up meaningless. 

PAY EQUITY MYTHS 

, There are three major myths advanced by pay equity opponents. 
Td like to briefly deal witlh them. 

Myth No. L— You can't compare dissimilar jobs: the apples and 
oranges argument. 

Reality.— Private sector employers and the Government have 
always compared jobs. These comparisons have led to an organiza- 
tional fact of life: hierarchy. Such comparisons, reflected in wage 
rates and job titles, form the foundation of virtually every single 
organization. 

The key thing is that dissimilar jobs may not be identical, but 
they are comprised of equivalent tasks and characteristics. 

Myth No. 2. — The free market determines wage rates -and 
women's jobs simply command lower wages. 

Reality.— Leaving aside the thorny issue of whether we really 
have a free market, in a sense opponents are correct. There's no 
denying that we nave economically pervasive lower pay in women's 
jobs. But this does not make it socially or morally right, nor eco- 
nomically efficient. 

Furthermore, workers always have 'had to fight for proper com- 
pensation. Women workers in female-dominated jobs'are less orga- 
nized into unions than mfen. As women enter unions, we hopefully 
will eventually see equity. , , ^ 

But must we face the prospect of strikes over this issue and of 
long battles in the courts and legislatures? No on^ will benefit if 




this is the oivly way female workers can achieve equality in the 
free market. 

Myth No. Pay equity will cost much. . . 

Reality.— In several jurisdictions, the cost of equity has proven 
very modest. In Minnesota, for example, the hard data indicated 
that pay equity increases would only amount to between 2 percent 
and 4 percent of the total budgeted for State salaries. 

Second, the costs of failing to implement comparable worth 
exceed the benefits. Better use of human resources will provide 
gains. And there's the simple fact that litigaftion— if necessary- 
will siphon off valuable resources. 

Finally, the lack of pay equity costs the Governmnent anrd tax- 
payer a lot of money. As the Department* of Labor has said, allow- 
ing women to earn the same amount as similarly qualified men 
could eliminate poverty for aboUt half of all poor families. Poverty 



Pay equity is not a snriall issue of concern to only a handful of 
activists. It is an issue of discrimination against more than half of 
all Americans, namely women. 

But more important, pay equity is a family issue. We have dis- 
pelled the myth that women work for pin money and luxury items. 
Women work because their families need their income. This isn't 
just true for women single parents, but for all households. Only 
those well off can afford to let one wage earner earn far less than 
she should. 

America's courts have clearly stated that title VII covers the 
issue of pay equity. The time has come for all employers— public 
and private— to iniplement this critical program. This subcommit- 
tee's hearings are an important first step. CWA encourages you to 
continue calling for pay equity action and we freely offer you our 
experiences and assistance as we travel the road to equality. 

Thank you. 

Ms. Oakar. I thought that^your statement was excellent, vely 
comprehensive, and concise. You have the unique situation of 
working with management on pay equity. Would you recommend 
this procedure for other areas in the private sector. 

Do you think that is the way that it should be done where you 
work together on correcting the inequities, or is there some other 
way? Are there disadvantages to that? 

Ms. KoOLE. Well, in my opinion, Madame Chairwoman, I think 
that it is vitally important that tabor and management do work to- 
gether in a cooperative forum, not only to develop a job evaluation 
plan, but also to implement one. 

I thfnk the input from both parties is essential in order to have a 
fair job evaluation plan, so that we can make sure that people are 
properly compensated. 

Ms. Oakar. The end result was the best result that you felt that 
you could get? 

Ms. KooLE. I believe so. I would have to say that in the operation 
of our joint committee, the joint committee that operated between 
1980 and 1983, we would start out in great disagreement, as you 





JC 35-003 0 - 84 -8 



110 

* ■ . ■ 

know, we can in the telephone industry, but eventually we were 
able to work out our differences and arrive at a consensus. I th'ink 
it was also very important at every step of the development of the 
plan to have not only rank and fileXWA members, but also first 
and second level supervisors to provide input. 

Ms. Oakar. I very often stress the idea that pay inequities result 
in very severe circumstances when a woman reaches retirement. 
We know that stJ& is the poorest person in the country. We also 
know that the social security laws— which I am trying to change- 
are very inequitable toward all women. Private pensions as well 
' leave something to be desired. 

I was struck .by some of your comments. You stated that pay in- 
. equity T(?presents a high inefficient use of resources. 

Can you expmd on that ^ little bit more? I thought that it was - 
right on target. 

Ms. KoOLK. If an. .employer CQntinues to discriminate against 
women workers, they are not benefitting from the greatest pbteh- 
tial that that employee has. I also think that in more recent years, ' 
that while we tend to think of discrimination as being a female, or 
even pay equity as being a totally fenjale issue, that it really is not,- 
particularly in the telephone industry. 

As changing technology takes place in the telephone industry, 
some of the former highly skilled, highly paid male dominated jobs 
are being changed. It is important that we identify the new skilled 
jobs, so that not only will women have opportunities, but also we 
can identify new jobs for male workers who are being displaced. 

I think that if we can get to that point, then it will provide job 
ojgportunities for both male and female workers, and it will provide 
valuable resources to the employers. 

Ms. Oakar. Well, that is an important point. In no way do we 
want this to seem as if it is a confrontation between me^i and 
women. We feel just as strongly about the manner in which men 
are treated in the workforce. 

The problem is that the inequitable question of pay js more often 
related to women than it is to men. We do not want any male's pay 
decreased. We just want women's pay to be increased to the level 
that is fair. 

Thank you and your union for appearing today. 
Ms, Kooi.E. Thank you. It was my pleasure. 

Ms. Oakak. I do want to explain to you and others that we were 
gone for awhile, because of votes on two issues. 

Our last witness is Ms. Sonya Johnson, who is a candidate for 
President, representing the Citizen's Party. Thank you very much 
for your patience. The Chair has admired you at a distahce for a 
long time. I admire your stand on' the Equal Rights Amendment. I 
know the personal costs that it meant to you. 

We would like you to proceed in whatever way is most comforta- 
ble. 

STATKMKNT OF SOMA JOHNSON, CITIZEN FOR PRESIDENT 

Ms. Johnson. I'd like to thank you, Congresswoman Oakar, and 
the members of your subcommittee for the work that you're doing 



ERIC 



on the i.ssue of c()rn[)aral)le worth, which has become, ol* course, one 
of the major civil rights issues ol'the 1980 s. 

Tm es[)ecially grateful for these two pieces of legislation whicfi 
s|)ell out tbe specifics of.pay equity for women and minorities, imd 
I know tliat today and tomorrow that you're goirig to h(Mr all ihe 
sp(»ciric merits and demerits of this concept and of your bills, and I 
h()|)e that today I can contribute with a slightly different pers[)Oc- 
tive to the thinking on this sul)ject. And appreciate the opportunity 
to ap|)ear before you today to testify as a feminist for the women of 
this Nation who have waited too long for justice. 

The United States is part of a global society in which physical, 
emotional, si)iritual, and primarily economic oppression of women 
has been the norm for nearly ;"),()()() years. This m^rssive oppression, 
this violence, has been the* model for all other oppression, all other 
violence, that is, since it has been legitimate, and believed to be- 
natural? Kven sanctioned by God for one-half the human family to 
rule the other half in every race, every country, every major socie- 
ty on Karth: it's no wonder that all other oppres^sion, all other vio- 
lence, is regarded as Jegitimate. One nation's ruling another; 
people of* one color ruling people of another color; the rich ruling 
the |)oor; the* strong the weak, and so on. In this way, economic vio- ' 
lence and all .other viojence has become acceptabl-e behavior. 

And become, indeed, a global habit of mind, a very dangerous 
global habit of m\nd ultimat^^ly lethal to us all. The women's move- 
ment has arisen just in this time in history. Just in the nick t)f 
time, 1 think, to help us make the crucial connections between vio- 
lence against women and violence against the planet and against 
the human race. It's arisen to prophesize that if we can't stop in 
even one U.S. city— even one of the multitude of violences against 
women — in this case economic violence, we have no hope for global 
peace. 

The women's movement has arisen to teach us that peace and 
justice are inextricably connected; that we can only learn What 
j)eace is, what's necessary to^have it, in the jnicrocosm of our own 
homes and workplaces. And that only having learned, in the micro- 
cosm, how to have peace, can we then project this knowledge into 
the macrocosm and have peace on the planet. The lesson of the 
women's movement is central therefore, to the major problems of 
our time. 

Central and urgent. Today therefore in this hearing, Congress- 
woman ()akar, those of us testifying for the just principle of compa- 
rable worth are doing a most important work of peace — possibly 
the most important work possible, in fact, for the survival of the 
planet and for the human family. 

Thank you again for your work and fbr inviting me to be part of 

it. 

[The statement of Ms. Sonia Johnson follows:] 



I am Soma Johnson, ('aiididale (or !Vt\sidcnl ()( ihc United State's of the Citizens 
I»arty. 

I applaud Coni^osswfnnan Mary Rose Oakar and the nuMnhers of (his subcominil- 
tee for yuur work on^lh(» issue of com[)arahle W(;rlh, e(jual pay for work of compara 
ble value, which has become one of" the major civil rights issues of the 19S()s. I ap- 



PRKI'AKKI) StATKMKNT OF SoNIA J()HNS(m 



ERIC 




, ■ / 112 

prt^uale the opporlunily to appear before ^pu today to testify on behalf of the 
women of this nation who have wailed far too long for justice. ^ 

According to a study done by the National (x)mmission on Working Women, 
wage survey conducted in Philadelphia in showed women received less for 

their 78-hour woYk week than male workers were getting from one 10 hour day." As 
we sifiiere today in 19S«1, women in the United States who work full time still earn 
less than (50 percent of the average male s wage. That means that American women 
must work nine days to earn what a man earns in five days. Discrimination on the 
basis -of sex accounts for this earnings gap. And, our sisters of color, who suffer the 
double burden of discrimination olf the basis of race, made disproportionately less 
than the average. j^^f^ 

It has been evident for many years that occupational {fegregatiol^PWl major cause 
of the national wage gap between men and women. The overall earnings between 
men and women i.* greater now than it was in the 1950s, and an analysis of the 
reasons make it clear that women are caught in low-paying jobs and that when 
women go into traditionally male-dominated jobs, the ^ay decreases rapidly. While 
women occupied (JH percent of clerical jobs in H)r)i), they held SO percent of*tnat cate- 
gory by 11)78. Today, 80 percent of all women who work are found in four low-paying 
job categories. . 

The issue of payi equitty is at the heart of women's poor earnings and, indeed, in- 
creasing poverty.' It is a national scancfal that women and children have experienced 
a slide into poverty so rapid that we are told that by the turn of tke century, all 
persons in poverty will be women and our children. At the &ame moment, we are 
spending unpr(»cedented dollars on military hardware, redistributing our national 
budget away from human needs to the militiiry. 

It is no surprise to the women of this Nation that the Reagan administration is 
leading the opfKJsition to th'e issue of pay equity. Mr. Reagan has made it clear to 
women that the trickle down theory will take care of our needs, and that the mar- 
ketplace will bring us eVjuity. He voices his opposition t6 the issue of pay equity by 
lifting up the objectionsjof employers that changing wage structures to reflect pay 
equity for women woula disrupt the entire economic system of this country. But, 
this is an economicvQi^Ki which is being challenged by the w^men of this nation. We 
are being joined by a few corporations and st^ite and local governments which have 
voluntarily structured their wage and job evaluation systems to provide more equi- 
table compensation and opportunities for all employees, including women and mi- 
norities, without suffering Economic* disaster. 

To paraphrase the^Supreme C'ourt in Corning O/ass, companies may want to be 
unjustly enrirhed by tfrking advantage of a situation where they can pa^ women 
less than men, and that "may be understandable as a matter of economice, ' but th^ 
law requires "that these depressed wages be raised as a matter of simple justice.* 

P'annie Ia)u Hammer said it all, "Women are sick and tired of being sick and 
tired." Women are tired of the trickle down theory. We are demanding that "justice 
roll down like a river" ao that the women of this Nation may live as citizens of 
equal work and value. 

Ms. Oakar, Thank you, Sonia. Look, let me ask you one question 
which probably will be the utlimate question. If you were President 
of the United States, what priority would this issue have? 

Ms. Johnson. Well, you know there are a lot of ways to win be- 
sides winning the White House and one of them is to be able to say 
where I'd put such a thing if I were President of the United States, 
and where I'd put it as you can . imagine, is very high indeed be- 
cause in a society that values money above almost all else, unfortu- 
nately, which is us and most of the rest of the global sftciety, and 
judges human beings by how nnuch they earn, how much they're 
worth in the market, equal pay for comparable worth is a princi- 
'pie, if followed, which would do more than simply cause economic 
violence against women to disappear, but which would also give 
women the kind of status that means that many of the other vio- 
lences against us, physical, spiritual, would also disappear. Just ab- 
solutely top priority for that reason. 

As I say, when we are monetarily inclined and that's our princi- 
pal motivation, then it is one of the prime things We have to do 



ERIC 



11 ■/ 



iuid this, ol counse, o!ic ol" the reasons the equal rights amendment 
was so important as well. And is. 

Ms. Oakak. I believe that the issue ol* pay equity for women is a 
question of survival. Don't you feel that wciy? 

Ms. »K)HNsoN. Oh, my Heavens yes. Absolutely. I'm a displaced 
homemaker myself. I'm one of those women who didri't get any 
child support, who didn't get any alimony; who had, to suddenly — 
suddenly oki of nowhere— support four children all 'on my own. I 
^understand precisely what- this is all about. 



Ms. Oakak. And you're now running for President of the United' 



Ms. Johnson. And can you imagine anybody more qualified to 
solve the problems that we see before us> I mean what motivation 
did all those men have, except perhaps Jesse Jackson, for wanting 
to change this system?* That's the reason you run, as a woman, of 
Course, is to say these things. 

Ms. Oakak. Well, I want to thank you, very much (or appearing 
before the committee, and again, I apologize ^br the long wait but 
we tried to take the list from the order in which people said they 
' wanted to participate. We are glad you asked to participate and the 
'* Chair is honored to have you here. 

Ms. Johnson. Thank you. 

Ms. Oakak. Thank you very much. This is going to conclude our 
hearing for today. We are going to proceed tomorrow -with anothei' 
round of hearings and will b(^hearing from Clarence Thomas who's 
the (:hair of EEOC. Mr. Thomas will be discussing EEOC's activity 
in this area. 

We're also going to bei\earing from several private sector unions 
and Federal employee groups. Phyllis Schlafly, president of the 
Eagle Forum, who has a somewhat different opinion than the 
Chair on this issue, will be appearing as well. 

I want to conclude by thanking the people responsible for getting 
"such excellent witnesses. I especially want to thank my staff, with-' 
out who's work we couldn't have proceeded today. 

TRe meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:iO p.m., the hearing was adjourned^ to recon- 
vene Wednesday, April 4, 1984.] * 




States? 



FEDERAL PAY E^)UITY ACT OF 1984 



WP:I)NEBI)AY, APRIL 4, 1984 

House of Representatives, ^ • 
Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, 
Subcommittee on Compensation and Employee Benefits, 

Washington, D,C, 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in room 
Hll, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Mary Rose Oakar presid- 

Oakar. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Today we will complete our hearings in Washington on H.R. 4599 
the Federal Employees' Pay Equity Act of 1984, and H.R. 5092 the 
Pay Equity Act of 1984. 

We are going to have other hearings during the summer, 
throughout the country, because we think this is an issue of con- 
cern to women acrosi? the country. 

During yesterday's heaning we received testimony from national- 
ly prominent witnesses including spokespersons from the three 
Democratic Presidential campaigns. The presidents of the National 
Organization for Women; the Service Employees International 
Union; tKe National Education Association; representatives from 
the Communication Workers of America; and the Director of the 
Office of Personnel Management. 

Most of what we heard yesterday centered around the facj that 
sex-based wage discrimination is a pervasive problem in our socie- 
ty. Women who occupy jobs that are female dominated earn espe- 
cially low wages. 

Witnesses also started that, in part, the wage gap persists because 
the Federal GoverniHent is not enforcing adequately current equal 
pay laws. . • * 

I am certain that Mr. Clarence Thomas who is the Chairman of 
the EEOC will address this issue when he appears later in 'the 
hearing. 

We are also going to hear from a number of employee represent- 
atives as w^ll as economist and other interest groups. 

I welcome everyone to the hearing. I look forward to receiving 
the testimony. 

I w^uld like to at this time acknowledge. Congressman Bosco. 

Mr. Bosco. Thank you. Madam Chair. And once more 1 would 
like to express my gr£|ititude to you for bringing this important 
issue to the forefront of public consideration. 

I have remarks that I will submit for the record, but in deference 
to the witnesses I will conclude my opening statement now. 

(115) ^ 



ERIC 




^ t 

M.s.'OakAh Thank you v(>ry much. And thank you for your pres- 
ence yesterday. Our hearing lasted about (i hours yesterday, and 1 
was j)leased to have you there the entire time. 

At this point I would like to submit for the record a letter from 
the president of the AFL-CIO, Lane Kirkland. 

Without objection we will submit his entire letter for. the record 

(The letteHrom*Mr. Kirkland follows.) ' . . 



ERIC ^ 



117 



STATEMENT SURMITTEH BY LANF KIRRLfiND, PRESIDENT 
^AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRE5S OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZA%IONS 
TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS, ^ 
COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE, 
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON PAY EQUITY LEGiaATION 

Apfil mti 

At its Fifteenth Constitutional Conv(?ntion in October 1981, the ArL-( lO adopted the 
follbwing sKiternenl on the pay equity issue": 

> * 

- ThV AJ-L-C'IO urges its aHiIiated unions to work to attain pay 

. . equity through rollertive bargaining a^eernents tfuit upgra^le imder- 

valued job rlassifrrations, and when a union determines that su( h , 
';^if^ti>'''i as le^dl lunitati^ons or the employer's bargaining policy tnake 
if necessary, to seek pay equity through administrative andjudicial 
redress. . ' ' 

^ ^ ^ We arc pleased ajjj;e results of me work which AFL^CK^ Affiliated unionsnrnVe beeq^ 

doing In the area of pay equity, results which will be reported to this S^ibconufuttee in ^he 

course of its hearings. 

We also ( ommend the initiative of this Subcommittee and its able Chairwoman, Rep. 

Mary Rose ("^akar, in providing, through these hearings, a very v.iluable opportunity for an 

extensive review and expression of public interest in this rnatte^f growing pubhc policy 

concern. Pay equity is a basic human and civil rights issue and deserves the widest possible 

forum for education arid discussion. 

The Concept of equal pay for comparable work is of major importance to organized 

labor. The labor movement was foundjd on the principle that ever^^ork(y in this country 

has dignity and that the job \hat he or shV performs has worth for which the worker should 

■be fairly compensated. 

^The labor movement has organized, led and participated in many activities to promote 

that principle through child labor laws, minimum wage Uws, collective barg.aining laws, civil 

rights and women's rights laws. ^ 

Unions are engaged in the fight for pay equity because of that principle. We know that 

discrlmilWtion in the compensation of jobs held primarily by women exists- We have been 

working to eliminate that discrj yfna tion for years by organizing women into unions and by 



ERIC 



collective barg^Jining. We have also used litigation as a tool to prciss for equal pay for jobs 

• • '^^ ■ 

of comparable worth. 



thJI a 



We do not beheve thJf any of the excuses that have been given for ignoringiftthc 
segregation of women into low-paying )obs and thc-disrnmination thAt cj^sts ic» roinpcnsa- 

tion is loRitunato. That se^^rcgation and discrimination exist has been well dorumerit>»d by 

..V , . ■ 



numerous st/idics that have shown: 

/. - ' - 

o ^ Women earn 60% of what men earn. Eight out o/ t^n 
women "Work in )ust job categories. 

A'malc clericaLjw^orker earns $100 more per week than a^ 
female cl^ij^f y/orker. 

^i^-i a^o 



A woman ^^(^ a^oUege degree^e^rns less than a man 
with an eighth grade education, » 
^ Mmority women ^- suffering from racism and sexism -- ^ ' 
liave the lowest earnings of any group of workers. 
Title Vll of the Civil Rights Art of 196^* bans all forrns of sex^iscrirnVn/tion in 
compensation. In dunther v. C^o unty of Washington , the Supreme ^otujf ruledyfis\/e had 
argued, that Title Vii of the Civil Rights Act permits all claimsRyfse\-based Vvage 
discrifninatioQf«^)d is not limited to disrrimination whirh also violates fhe Equal ^ay Ac\ of 

W . ■ 

1963. Thus, existing law provides the legal tools to achieve pay equityJ 

' What is needed today, as it has been needed sinc:e the Guryier <1ecision in 1981, is 
enforcernent of Title VII. Enforcement means pr6mpt investigation of claims of sex 
discrimination by all appropriate agencies. Current practices of agencies in this area 
particularly the lead agency, the EEOC are shameful. 

Enforcement also m(fans implementation of pay equity -for federal employees as 
mandated by the Civil Service Reform Act o( 1978, in conjunction with federal labor unions. 
Enforcement agencies must involve labor unions in their efforts to eliminate wage 
discrimination. *■ 



119^ 

But law enforcpment is something for which this Administration has no enthusiasm, at 
least when the laws to be enforced are those against discrimination. Despite the riarity of 
the Court's pronouncement in Gunther, nearly 3 years ago, and the many charges filed with 
the F.l-Or by AKL-ni:^ affiliates and others, the PPOC has yet to ari ,n this area. The 
world will not stand still simply because the Administration does -- AFSCMli has won an 
important victory in its Washington State case which ' the AFL-CIO, if not the 
Administration, will be actively supporting on appeal. I^ut the law will not be developed a^ 
rapidly as it should without a strong federal government lead, in part b^-cj^ifese private parties 
will be lirrtited in what tliey can do by the immense cost of precedent-setting litigation. 

Of at least as great importance is the impetus that federal government ar tivity gives 
to voluntary complianc:e with the law when the government makes plain its intention to see 
that the law will be upheld. It is an unhappy fact that the message the Reagan 
Adininistrdtioir inactivity is sending to the employers of America is that sex discrimination 
in wages and salaries fs not really very important or very wrong. . 

Tliat same messaj^e, of course, is sent by the Office of Personnel Management's refusal 
to acknowledge, mucli less put into practice, the Civil Service Reform Act's specific rail for 
pay equity in the federal executive branch. 

Members of Congress now have, I believe, a singular opportunity as overseers of the 
federal establishment. The ip^ral government itself offers a peculiarly appropriate 
laboratory for further development of the concept of pay equity, both in Executive agencies 
and in those agencies that under the direct supervision of the Congress, such as the Library 
of Congress, the General Accounting Office and the Government Printing Office, The 
legislation now pending before this Subcommittee, H.R. 5092, Pay Hquity Act of 198^*, and 
H.R. ^599, Federal Employee's Pay Equity Act of 1 9S<^ both recognize and address 
themselves to this responsibility. The federal government should be taking the lead in 



dealing with the evident systematic wag^bias against women workers. ' 



\ 



{ 




.1 ' >, r 



12, 



} 



120 



Ms. Oakau. Our^first witness is the Honorable Leo "McCarthy 
who is the Lieutenant Governor of the State of California. 

Leo, we are very happy to have you here* And as I told you pri- 
vately, having a sister-in-liaw whose maiden name is McCarthy 
from Ohio, I am certain she will be happy to know that the McCar- 
thy clan is well representejl in California. But we know of your 
work in this area, and I am ^ry pleased to have you appear before 
the subcommittee. 

I would like to acknowledge CongressrT)an Bosco, if you would 
like to say a few words about the witness. 

Mr. BoscT). Thank you. Madam Chair. I have known Leo McCac- 
thy for many years. He .has served in our State legislature. ^He was 
the speaker of the California Assembly during the period "of time 
when enormous progress was made in helping people in the work^ 
place. He is a friend of small business in particular. And I think a 
person who represents * tremendous balance in making public 
^policy. ' , 

At present he is serving as our^Lieutenant Governor in a ^situa- 
tion where we have a Republican Governor and a Democratic Lieu- 
tenant Governor. But charactettetic of Mr. McCarthy, he is able to 
operate effectively under those circumstances, and I think has dc&ie 
a great deal to make California tfi^ type State that can be at the 
forefront of providing comparable pay and comparable work condi- 
tions for men and women. 

I am very proud to have him here. I think his testimony will 
speak for itself. 
.Ms. Oakar. Thank you very much. Congressman. 

Lieutenant Governor McCarthy, you can proceed in whatever 
way is most comfortable.' 

TKSTIMONY of HON. LEO McCARTHY, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR 
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. McCarthy. Thank you very much. Thank you for allowing 
me this opportunity to testify on a subject which is a growing con- 



strata of our society. We know it is there. We know^that injustices 
exist. But we are not quite sure how to bring about the solutions. 

You will hear during these hearings from those who will tell you 
that this sort of economic discrimination is all right— that the way 
things' are, is the way they should remain. But we know that there 
is a real inequity being perpetuated or we would nOT be her^ today, 
during these days, to address this problem. 

Recognizing that there is a problem is one step. Doing something 
about that problem is another step. But there is a third step which^ 
seems to many eyes to be the largest Jeap of all, and that is to' 
measure the impact of the proposed solutions. There are real fears 
that any effort to rebase the workplace wage structure on the 
value of the job performed may have a catastrophic financial 
impact. 

Let me talk about the California experience for a moment, and 
tell you what has already taken place in* the State which has faced, 
at least in part, the problem of comparable worth and these pay 
equity issues at both the State and the local level. 



cern across the country. The issue 




Longstanding Califoroia law requires equal pay for equal work 
performed under similar conditions. It prohibits discrimination on 
the basis of sex. From that basis, other steps woulcf follow. 

In 1982, a law took effect getting comparable worth as the State's 
official policy in establishmg salaries for jobs dominated by female 
employees. 

For the first time, this statute eliminated the prevailing^age as 
.the only standard to be used in setting pay scales. 
' In 1983, a resolution was passed setting up a task force in our 
State to study policies of equal pay for work of equal value in the 
California workplace. And in that same year a Senate bill required 
the University of California and the California State College and 
University system, 19*can)puses in all, to study their wage prac- 
tices wheri^ compensation is based upon sex, with a report to be 
made to the legislature soon. • 

In that sanie year again, ah assembly bill banned^ local govern- 
ments from ruling out comparable worth as a factor in salary nego- 
tiations. All those measures are now law. 

The line of policy is clear and distinct in California. Unfortunate- 
ly, so is the lack of real, concrete action to improve the situation. 
We may know what vye hope to accomplish, but we have still done 
very little toward turning theory and principle into dollarS'-and- 
cents fact. , , 

In several localities, however, direct action by city employees and 
local officials has produced results. In San Jose a 9 day-strike cen- 
tered on the issue of pay equity. Studies there showed instance 
after instance of discriminatory wage setting. In a job evaluation 
study, using the widely accepted Hay Method of determining value, 
typist clerks were rati^d equal to the male-dominate custodians — 
but the custodians got $90 a month more in their^^iychecks. 

On the rating scale, electrical foremen and orty nurses were con- 
sidered equal in value, yet the nurses wer^^id more than $300 a 
month less. " 

Another category: principal clerks, Mostly women, were rated 
significantly higher than the predominantly mak painters. Howev- 
er, the painters were paid $209 a month more. 

The strike in San Jose produced results; 60 female dominated 
types of jobs got wage increases of 5 to 15*percent— a rather sub- 
stantial step tcJWards workplace equality. 

In other localities, similar stories. In Jx)8 Angeles, a 1980 agree- 
ment brought comparable worth adjustments for 12 clerical classes 
of jobs. The city of Woodland in 1983 began closing a 31 percent 
pay gap between its male and female employees. 

Progress is being made city by city. It is slow. It can be frustrat- 
ing. But each reform makes the next that much more feasible. And 
each helps to begin defining the economic impact of comparable 
worth principles applied to the marketplace. 

For the most part, frankly, we are still studying, still trying to 
understand what is fair to <&veryone. But there is a growing urgen- 
cy about these studies, a realization that we must have answers to 
highly significant questions. How much will comparable worth 
cost?'How will it work? What will its impact be on employment op- 
portunity? 



122 



As Lieutenant (iov(M'nor of California I chajr the State's econom- 
ic development commission. One of my first official actions was to 
establish a commission task force on the feminization of poverty. 
And that task force has set as one of its prime goals a thorough 
study of occupational and pay disparities in California. That study 
is now underway and going to make reccJmmendations later this 
year. 

Still, as we talk about and think about widening career opportu- 
nities for women, and narrowing or eliminating the pay gap, we irt- 
evitably come back to a Vinal sticking point: How nntuch is it going 
to cost us and governmental agencies? 

In the opinion of th^ courts, cost is no justification for the failure 
to eliminate illegal discrimination. .The'claim that an unjust prac- 
tice bears a cheaper price tag is hardly an adequate defense for 
prolonging the injustice. 

Nonetheless, we are developing some information about costs. ^ 

In the case of San Jose, settling its strike ana equalizing wage 
practices for r)00 to GOO employees cost less than $2^2 million spent 
over a 2-year period. Statewide, California has identified four 
female-dominated bargaining units of public employees, which 
seem most in line for equalizing salaries. If these 64,000 State 
workers, including nurses, office workers, librarians and those in 
education and social services support — were to receive an increase 
in pay of 20 percent, the Sttite's payroll would increase just slightly 
more than 3 percent: And if that increase were to be phased in 
over a 2- or'^^-year period, as has been the practice elsewhere, its 
impact could be absorbed without serious problems. 

The argument that no sizable government has the resources to 
cope with such a problem of equali2:ing wages is left wobbling on its 
own preconceptions by the California figures. The cost can be 
phased in. But the process of wage equalization should start its 
timt^ame immediately. ^ 

There is one other economic factor frequently and conveniently 
overlooked by opponents of comparable worth. Studies indicate 
that a consistent policy of equal pay would elevate a substantial 
number of families out of the poverty classification a very real 
long-term benefit to government and to all taxpayers,. nOtsto speak 
of the families involved. ' 

My point, obviously, is this. The consequences of eliminating 
unfair and potentially legally actionable Wage discrimination are 
hardly catastrophic in scope. 

It is within reason, and within reach, tq jbring about near equali- 
ty of pay and opportunity*in oUr society. ^ ' 

You will hear today the arguments of those who feel the compa- 
^rable worth is a concept destructive both to a free market economy 
and to the sanctity of the American home. 

The reality, of course, is that the average home now is a two- 
salary family; 62 percent of all married women in this Nation 
work. And there is no reason to believe that easing the financial 
burdens bf married couples will do anything but make their lives 
less stressful and more fulfilling, i 

As for the free market argument, 'let me observe that I believe 
strongly in free market principles, which allow rewards according 
to ability. But these are times there have been times in the past, 



I2u 



128 

when the f roe market principle was niisused. It was nnisused to try 
to prohibit an employee's right to bargain Collectively. It was mis- 
used when we wanted to ban discrimination in employment, when 
it was based on race or age or sex. And the argument of the free 
market principle in those instances, I do not bolievp is any more 
applicable than it is now. 

What we need, Madame Chair and Congressman Bosco, is Feder- 
al action to l^ffd the way to take a giant step toward ending wage 
discrimination in^ the civil service and to enforce Federal laws 
against discrimination in compensation. - - 

Further, we need to couple this action with Federal support for a. 
wider occupational spectrum for women; 80 percent of working 
women are now employed in only 20 occupational categories out of 
420 as described by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Women must have equal access to that broad range of work op- 
portunity that until now has been out of their reach. 

By so doing, you will have expressed a firm Federal commitment 
to ending the economic exploitation of an endangered resource: the 
women of this country. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. Oakah. Thank you very much. Lieutenant Governor. 

And, first of all, I want to say that I am very pleased with the 
work that you have done in California. My own State of Ohio has 
some catching up to do. I am proud to say that our Governor, our 
new Governor h^s appointed a task force and plans to do some- 
thing about the manner in which the, State of Ohio treats its State 
employees. I think that activity in the States on the issue of pay 
equity is a very significant sign, even though it is somewhat embar- 
rassing that on a national level, we ha\e not done our fair share of 
what should be done; in fact serve as th^Tnomentum for the State 
governments to do the same. 

I was struck by your testimony in which you mention that, even 
when the rating is the same in terms of the value of male jobs and 
female jobs, that women make significantly less. 

Mr. McCarthy. That has been proven again and agaifi. 

Ms. Oakar. I think your ideas on phasing it in as well as the 
women's contribution to the economy if you pay them properly are 
right on target. Too often the dollar amount of changing the pay 
scales is over emphasized, while the financial loss'to women is de- 
emphasi/.ed. 

So, I wantj^o-tjiank you very much for being here. 
Mr. Bosco. 

Mr. McCarthy. Thank you. 

Mr. Bosco. I have one question, Madame Chair. 

Mr. McCarthy, is this a women's issue or is it a men's issi/e or a 
family issue or a children's issue? 

Mr. McCarthy. Well, Congressman Bosco, I do not view this as a 
women's issue. And anybody who describes it that way anymore 
does not have an accurate perception of the makeup of the work 
force in America. 

When we now know from the census that 62 percent of married 
women in America are working, when we know just ir) California 
that 600,000 women are heads of household with dependent chil- 
dren, we must understand that this is a family issue. 



ERIC 



12/ 



. We are t^Uking about the fiscal, and with that, the emotional sta- 
bility of many familiea^cross^this Nation. 

. If we were discussing these issues in terms of the context of the, 
•work.force 30 ypars ago^ perhaps those who describe this narrowly 
as a wornen'si issue could'get away with that description. 
• That is simply, however, in today's terms, not a reflection of the 
work force. « 

Mr. Bosco. Thank^ou! i 
/M's. Oakar. Thank\you. very much. 
Mr. McCarthy. Thank you. 

M^s. Oakar,. And we are very glad that you took the tipie to come 
to Washington. ^ , . " 

Our ne^t witness is the Ho^iorable iJames Oberstar of Minnesota 
and the Honorable Jim Bates of California; both Congress Members 
who are very supportive of issues that relate to fairness. 

We are especially pleased that you could come to take t,he time 
out of your busy schedules, Jim and Jim. 
^ Mr. Oberstar, would you like to beg:in? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES L. OBERSTAR, A REPRESENTATIVE 
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Mr. Oberstar. Thank you very iftuch. Madam Chairman. I apolo- 
gize for beinjg delayed this morning. , We were at a parent-teacher 
conference vyith our 10-year-old, and that took a little longer than I 
anticipated and I got stuck in traffic. 

Ms. Oakar. Well, we were just talking about how this issue is a 
'fSttiW issue, Jim. I think you relate to that in your own situation 
as weN. 



Mr. Oberstar. It is very much indeed a family situation, and I 
might say that I got my first lesson in pay equity at home from a 
working mother. My father worked all his life in the underground 
iron ore mines in northern Minnesota. 

My mother worked in a shirt factory in town, not because she 
wanted to, not because there was some unfulfilled dream that she 
wanted to accomplish in a shirt factory, but because she had to, in 
order to make ends meet, in order to get those little extra things 
that made life enjoyable, and oftentimes the necessities of life. 

And what she worked for was just barely the minimum wage. 
There hadn't been a minimum wage law — I am sure it would have 
been a pay a good deal less. That brought home to all of us the 
need for adequate pay for women as well as men in the work force. 

Vm here in support of the Federar Employees Pay Ekjuity Act 
and the Pay Equity Act of 1984, both H.R. 4599 and H.R. 5D92. 
Wage discrin^inatian based on sex and job segregation in the work- 
place is common, ^trenched, and far-reaching. 

It's a painful fact familiar to all too many women who seek em- 
ployment at a decent living wage. Despite passage of the 1963 
Equal Pay Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the gap between 
men's and women's wages haa not decreased in the last two dec- 
ades. It's either remained the same, and in some cases it has wid- 
ened. 

Women continue to earn some 60 cents for every dollar earned 
by men, and even if you adjust that figure for factors such as the 





12.') 



lower seniority ol wonuMi and the fact that thi7 aie in and out ol* 
the work force, you can still explain only hall of the ^^ip. 

Job segiegation accounts for much of the remaining gap. The 
fact is that women aie concentrated in a veiy small numbei* of low- 
paying' occupations; SO percent of women work in only ^f) of the 
Labor I)e[)ai1m(wU's 420 occupations. 

Secretaries, i)f) pei'cent female. Nuises, i)7 peicent. "Klementary 
teacheis, S4 peicent female, ('leaning and household sei vice work- 
ers, 5)S pei'cent female. Clei-ks, S() percent female. 

And all those occupations consistently pay less than occupations 
dominated by men: ti*uck drivei's, plumbers, |anitoi*s, mail cai i iers, 
meat cutters. The fact is that the aveiage working woman now 
earns some $}),;{r)() a year compared ,to a workin'g man's wages of 

$ir)j;{o. ... ^ 

And even if they have equal educational achievement, you still 
find that the gap has not been nari'owed significantly so far as 
earnings are concerned. Women with a college education, often 
earn less than men who have completed only the eighth grade. 

'The wage diffei'ential is even more critical for poor women, often 
the single head of the family, sole provider, woiking to escape the 
welfare rolls. A li)Hl report by the National Academy of Sciences 
said that not/)nly dt) women do different work than men, but the 
work women do is paid less: 

And the moi'e an occupation is dominated by women, the less it 
* pays, and thaj. is just plain unfair, i\ ought not to exist in our socie- 
ty. This committee has an opportunity to do something about it. 

C'ities and counties. States all acrpss the country, questions are 
increasingly being asked and confrontation being made about the 
fairness of* paying nurses less than tiree trimmeis, secretaries less 
than custodians, female cooks less than male'bakers. 

And, I might add, by my 14-year-old daughtei', who says ''Why 
should I get paid less for spending Tc^ur houis with a family's pre- 
cious three children than my older l^rother does for cutting their 
lawn?" ' 

In my State of Minnesota, a job evaluation study found that 
women who were employed by the'^ State earnifd less than their 
male counterparts, and the pay gap had widened from a $4,190 gap 
in 1!)7() to a $r),01H gap in 1980. \ ■ 

Job segregation was the principal reason foi* that gap.^Almost 
half* of* the women employed by the State are clerical workers, 
while a fourth are craft workers, and they* are men/ 

Men's jobs are- higher paid than th^ women*s jobs. The State has 
an evaluation system under which points are attributed to jobs 
based on know-how, on problem-solving, on accountability, on 
worj^ing cojiditions. 

A delivery van driver and clerk-tvpist 2 are ea(4i worth 117 
points, so they're roughly equal, yet u\e mostly male-occupied de- 
livery van drive!' job pays $1(5,584 a year, while the mostly female' 
clerk-typist 2 job paid $18,1^80 a year. . 

A Minnesota study showed that librarians earned $1,825 a month 
compared to a vocational field instructor at $2,2()0, and an unem- 
ployment tax examiner at $1,0()1. Under' the State evaluation 
system, both of the male-dominated jobs have fewer point^t^than the 
librarian job. 

i- C J 



ERIC 



126 

Librarians vshould be paid equal or more, and yet it was paid less. 
The State went on to pass legislation to deal with that problem. 
The Minnesota Council on the Economic Status of Women made 'a 
number of recommendations resulting in legislation approved by 
the State legislature in 1982 that earmarked $21.7 million to make 
pay equity adjustments. Some 7,400 State employees benefited from 
that legislation. 

The interesting thing is, to counter the argument that if you pay 
women it is going to break the bank, the Council on the Economic 
Status of Women found that the increases amounted to only 2 to 4 
percent, notiof the total State budget, but of the budget for sala- 
ries. ( 

The hourly pay for clerk-typist 2 will increase 23 percent, but the 
total budget for salaries will increase barely 2 to 3 percent. 

State and local governments have taken the lead in the fight for 
pay equity. That is a role that the Federal Government should 
have played, and the time is long overdue for the Federal Govern- 
ment to set the pace, to act decisively to end wage' discrimination 
and iri^sure economic equity for womei^ ^ 

The Pay Act of 1963, and I can rer^mber that,- having served on 
the/staff here, we thought it was going to make broad sweeping 
changes, require employers to pay the same wages to both men and 
women for work that requires equal skill,' effort, and responsibility. 

And yet it hasn't worked that way. Even the Civil Rights Act jof 
19()4 prohibits discrimination in pay, and that hasn't proved effec- 
tive. It wasn't until the 1981 Supreme Court case that we had some 
court action determining that wage discrimination based on sex is 
illegal, even if the jobs compared are entirely different. ^ ^ 

That began to turn the clock in the right direction. More recent- 
ly, the AFSCME v. State of Washington decision last year, the 
Court found that the evidence is overwhelming that there has been 
historical discrimination against women in employment in the 
State of Washington, and that discrimination has been and is 
manifested by direct, overt, and institutionalized discrimination. 

I haven't seen a statement that states the case as well, as suc- 
cinctly and as dramatically as that Court'decision. Instituyonalized 
discrimination, overt and direct. The decision had a very important 
aspect in requiring— or finding that the State discriminated on the 
^ basis of sex by paying predominantly female jobs less than pre- « 
dominantly male jobs that required equivalent or lesser composite 
of skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions. 

Now, the current admmistration came into Wfishington with a 
commitment to pay equity, and yet the Reagan administration and 
the executive branch agencies charged with enforcing the laws on 
wage discrimination have failed to do so. 

In 1981 this administration proposed to remove language encour- 
aging Government action to correct sex-based wage discrimination 
from an outstanding Executive order. 

In 1979 and 1980 the Equal Employment Opportunwity Commis- 
sion played a leading role in employment— in equal pay cases. Yet 
when this aduiinistration came into office. President Reagan did 
not nominate any EEOC Commissioners .until August 1981, and 
when they; did take over, the new appointees expressed their oppo- 
sition to correcting sex-based wage discrimination, and they made 

Er|c ijij 



0 



127 



it clear to omployors that they had nothing to fear from the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission. ^ 
, And in the absence of positive action under the executive branch, 
it is up to us in the Congress to take decisive action. Laws may not 
change attitudes. They can -change the .course of action by Govern- 
ment and by private employers and by setting a framework of law. 
Eventually attitudes also will change. 

I congratulate you, Madam Chairman, for holding these hear- 
ings, for your constant dedication to this cause, setting the pace 
and the tone on this vitally important question of pay equity. 

Ms. Oakar. Well, thamk you very much, and thanks for the work 
that you've done, not only as a Member of Congress byt as a staff 
person prior to thfft. The Fair Pay Act is very important in estab- 
lishing what the law prohibits. 

We're also happy to have with us Hon. James Bates from Califor- 
nia, who's always on the side of, fairness, and we*re glad you cou4d 
come, too, Jim. f 

Would you like to proceed? 

STATKMKNT OF HON. JAMES FJATES, A FtEPRESENTATIVE IN 
CONGFtESS FFtOM TFIE STATE OF CALFFOFtNFA 

Mr. Batks. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Congressman 
Bosco. I appreciate the opportunity to provide a short statement oh 
the H.R. 4599, the Federal Employee Pay .Equity Act of 1984, and 
H.R. 5092, the Pay Equity Act of 1984. 

Fm a cosponsor of both pieces of legislation, which ar:^ designed 
to alleviate the unequal treatfnent of women in our society. I think 
youVe heard a lot of the facts. Fll reiterate briefly some of those 
that indicate women, working women, earn on the average less 
than (50 cents for every dollar earned by the average male worker. 

Couple this with the fact that most women workers, over 80 per- 
cent, occupy only 20 percent of 427 job classifications listed by the 
Department of^Labor. These are the so-called traditional women's 
jobs. They're indispensable to our society— such fields as teaching, 
nursing, child care, and clerical serviofcs. 

And yet those persons holdingLHose jobs have consistentlyAe- 
ceived low wages. The higher Jhergtio of female workers to pfiale 
workers in a particular category, field, the lower the wages in that 
particular field. 

The traditional job evaluation and classification systems have 
tended to favor male workers and have undervalued the work that 
women have performed. There is definitely a need to conduct. re- 
search in the area of compensation and Job performance, and to de- 
velop more equitable and quantitative methods which would take 
jnto consideration the similarities in education, skills, responsibil- 
ities, and working conditions. ^ 

It is such criteria upon which equal pay for jobs of comparable 
worth is based, and that's why I think these two bills which are 
being studied in these hearings^ provide us with an excellent first 
step in that direction.. 

The current administration has beeh hesitant, to say the least, in 
enforcing the letter and the spirit of the Equal^ Pay Act of 1963, 
title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as it pertains to the gender 



128 



gap in wages, and it seems to be iijcumbent on all of us, particular- 
ly in the- Congress, to address this situation and to remedy it. 

And this legislation, which champions the cause of pay equity in 
the Government itself, could provide a compelling mandate for 
other agencies and businesses in our society to take similar steps. 

Thank you. 

Ms. Oakar. Well, thank you, Jim, and I just want to say that 
we're really grateful for your support and your cosponsorship of 
the legislation. Obviously the women in the House can't do it 
alone. There are 21 of us out of 435, so we need all the male sup- 
port we can get. Your sensitivity, most importantly, concerning the 
issue is very, very important to us. 

Thank you very much, both of you. 

Mr. Oberstar. Not as scintillating a performance as you had 
before this committee yesterday, with all the TV lights and Ipright 
personalities that were here, but our commitment's equal and seri- 
ous and genuine, and we will unite behind your leadership on this 
issue to get these two pieces of legislation enacted, 

Ms. Oakar. You know, Jim, we have a very interesting forum 
today, as well. I think you'll find that in terms of substance, this ' 
S day's hearing will be just as important. You're certainly a valued 
contributor to that. 

Thank you. 

Mr. Oberstar. It was a delight to' hear you on the network news 
last night. t 

Mr. Bosco. Madam Chair, I would just like to say that before 
Congressman OI)l|rstar leaves, that though the performance yester- 
day was scintillating, no one had the courage to bring up babysit- 
ting and lawn-cutting* in this context. I admire you for that. 
[Laughter.] / ' 

Ms. Oakar. Our next witness is Ms. Diana Rock, director of 
women's activities for the department. of the American Federation 
of State, County, and Municipal Employees, accompanied by Rita 
Wallace, who is the executive vice president of the Nassau County 
Local 83 CglK AFSCME 1000. 

I'm very honored to have you here, Diana and Rita. Your union* 
has-been in the forefront in defending the rights of its^ women 
members. Certainly, the case that AFSCME won in the State of 
Washington was extraordinarily important in putting this on tlje 
front burner. Once again it is an issue. • 

^So we want to thank both of you for being here, and for all the 
support and work you've given to our office, as well. 

Diana, would you like to proceed? We will submit your entire 
statement for the record, without objection, an^ *yo^3^iyiay , proceed 
in whatever way is most comfortable. 



0 

ERIC 



i J 



129 

STATKMKNT .OF DIANA K()( K, l)IRK(T()K OF \V^)iMKN'S A(1lVI- 
TIKS, AMKKK AN FKDKKATION OF STATK, COUNTY. ANDTVlllNIC- 
IPAI. KMFI.OYKKS, A(:( OMFANIKI) BY RITA WAI.I.A( K, KXKCU- 
TIVK VICE PKKSIDKNT, NASSAU LOCAL CIVIL SERVICE EM- 

^i^LOYEES ASSOCIATION 

Ms. Rock. OK, Thank you very much. Thank you for the oppor- 
tunity to be here to testify on behalf of the two bills that you have 
introduced. 

It is appropriate that you would show the leadership at the Fed- 
eral level. As you mentioned earlier, Ohio has shown real leader- 
ship at home, also. 

The bills you've introduced will serve as a very important signal 
around the country to those that are considering comparable worth 
bills, to those* that fear it somewhat; and to those that have fol- 
lowed the issue and know that the time for comparable worth has 
come, there will be a great sense of satisfaction. 

Particularly -^ftf^half of the AFSCME members in eight States 
and cities who filed EEOC charges, and had those charges fall on 
deaf ears of the Federal Government, I particularly express their 
thanks to you in hopes that this action— just the very hearing 
itself— will help EEOC take the issue a little rpore seriously. But 
certainly the enforcement and the reporting mechanisms in your 
bill will give them no choice if they choose to be reluctant. 

There's no need to repeat the compelling statistics that have 
been given by others In terms of why the need for this kind of leg- 
islation, and what the results of discrimination in the past has 
been on women and' men in female-dominated jobs across the coun- 
try. 

We have been gratified by the kind of action that we've seen al- 
ready taken by a number of States—States represented by wit- 
nesses here, and States such as Minnesota and California. In Wash- 
ington State much has been written, and much has-been said about 
the case there. There are a couple of points that I . would like to 
make that often go unsaid about the cas^. 

We all talk about the cost of paj^quity, and it's certainly a 
factor that people should be aware of. But let there be no mistake 
from anyone in this room that sex discrimination in compensation, 
called comparable worth, and called pay^uity, is clearly illegal. 
It s illegal in every State because of Federal law. Additionally, 13 
St^^tes have passed their own laws fornnally using the phrase ''com- 
parable worth" in the State 4aw. 

Discrimination against women in sex-segregated jobs is such an 
invjjwble .kind of discrimination that it's almost been aqcepted as a 
of the system. And the attention that these hearings give to 
that issue will go a long way toward taking the veil off of] this in- 
)isible discrimination. 

^But talking for a minute, if I jnay, about the Washington State 
cas^, a lot of people don't realize when they hear the big price tag, 
and it can range anywhere from $500 million to $1 billion in terms 
of the final amount that will be assessed on the State of Washing- 
ton, that as far back as 1973 AFSCME members asked the Cover-- 
nOr of the State to take a look at their State systena. It seemed to 
them that there was no justification for the discrepancy in salaries 



5 



130 

among womon and among men , except that women tended to be in 
sex-segregated jobg and those jobs paid less. * * 

The Governor of the State at that tirpe asked the two personnel 
agencies of the State tp do an internal study. They studied a small 
sampling of sex-segr^ted jobs, and concluded that they could find 
no explanation for the discrepancy in salary. ' \^ 

They then commissioned a larger study now made famous by the 
Willis Associate study, and that organization took a much larger 
sample, and again determined that there was no explanation for 
the vast discrepancy in salary except that women in female-domi- 
nated jobs were simply paid less.^, 

In 1976 the Governor put money in the budget, a little over $7 
million, to start redressing a remedy to the people in those female ~ 
dominated jobs. - ' 

That Governor left office. A new Governor came in and immedi- 
ately took that money out of the budget. For the next several years 
AFSCME members th ere asked the Governors, two Governor^ to 
put that money back in the budget and to simply follow the results 
of their own repCfated studies. Their request fell on deaf ears. 

In 1981 nine AFSCME members there filed EEOC charges on 
behalf of all of the men and women in female jdominated jobs. In 
1982, when EEOC had nQt acted on those chartes, AFSCME file^ 
i^s intention t^o sue. ^ 
Uronically, Shortly following, when AFSCME made it clear that 
we would sue, the legislature put $1.5 million in the budget along 
with a bill that sounded very nice; that said that perhaps their 
sy^tern was unfair. It certainly wasn't illegal, but perhaps it was 
unfair! And in 10 years .they wanted to bring all the female domi- 
nated jobs^up to where tney should have been, and put $1.5 million 
in the budget to do that. .That^s less than $100 gross for the 15 to 
20,000 people in those jobs. Statisticians estimated it would have 
taken 80 or 90 years to achieve equity at the rate that they \vere 
going. 

The final cost will be, and it's not yet determined, but the final 
cost will be, as I said, between $500 million £|nd a $1 billion. What ^ 
people seldom realize with that cost, and that certainly is imposing, 
is that two-thirds of that price tag is back pay because the State 
refused for years to address the problem that they identified: 

So it's important for people to understand that most of that 
money, again, is back pay, vv^uld-not have been necessary if they 
had simplj[ responded to any one of the requests that AFSCMlE 
made over a period of 10 years. ' 

Another-^ase that I would like to point out because it's been 
greatly underreported — I guess it isn't as sexy as a billion dollar 
lawsuit — what Minnesota did. We se6 that as a textbook example 
of how pay equity ought to be handled where collective bargaining 
agreements cover employees. 

The union ^there put pay equity on the negotiating table. The 
first 2 years it didn't go anywhere. Then aft^r the court case in 
1981 the Supreme Court decision in Gunthkr, people were more se- 
rious in Minnesota about negotiating for p^y equity. About $22 mil- 
lion was set aside ^ut of the State personnel budget. Again, that* « 
was 2 to 4 -percent of the total personnel budget, not the state 
budget. ^ ' ' 



ERJC 13.i 



Pa^ equity in li)H2 and VM\ is being phased in and over, 9,000 
employees in the State ol* Minnesota, are receiving increases. The 
amount of those increases were negotiated through our uhion 
there, and done in accordance with the Commission on the Status 
of Women study. 

And so pay equity is a matter of fact in Minnesota, and the 
reasjjn no one heard about it is because it j ist worked right. Rea- 
sonable people sat down over a negotiating table and worked out a 
reasonable settlement. You haven't heard/ about it like you've 
heard aboyt the State of Washington because Washington was a-^ 
situation where people had to be forced through a court order io 
enforce the laws of the land. 

And they have, of course, still even appealed the decision, and 
that appeal is pending. 

Pay eguity is costly, but I would like for you to consider the cost 
to the employees affected in the State of Washington. For this 
period of 10 years after the problem was first ideatified, women 
were paid on average about 22 percent less than men were paid. 

Ten years later when the situation was finally resolved at the 
district court level, the gap had widened to.over 30 percent. 

And if you think about the people that were not able to buy 
homes; the people that were not able to go back tq school, it s a sad 
sfatement for a State who's ]^equired to enforce the law to be one of 
the most flagrant violators of the law. 

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has testified 
before other congressional committees that tHey have reviewed 
over 250 cases that they have identified' as comparable worth cases, 
and have not found jany that they foundtm^ritorious to investigate. 
I hope that the hea/ring, ahd the attention put on this issue today 
will perhaps have them feconsidter some of the charges that have 
been filed against them.^^^ 
^ Ms. OaKar. Well, Mr. TFTomas is our next witness. 

Ms. Rock. Yes. Ronald Reagan is the only Presidential candidate, 
to my knowledge, that does not have a position oh pay equity one 
way or another, and we'^md it incredible that someone could be 
running the Government liVz years and ri6t have any stated posi- 
tion on what is considered' by friends and foes of the issue to be the 
civil rights issue, the women's issue of the 1980's. 

I would like to introduce Rita Wallace, who is a membeV of 
AFSCME, and is a registered nurse, and is one of those people that 
has filed charges with EEOC, and she'll talk about her personal 
frustrations, and personal experiences when the charges that have 
been filed have been ignored. 

[The statement of Ms. Rock follows:] 



13.1 



J 



Ai^ All Ml ' .11 lilANA l^no , DlU'l MnlMli WDMl'i"'. 
AdIVl'ISS, AMfkltAr, ||I)(kM!U)\ ()( MAlt . lOHMV. A'<'' 
Mi'Mi K'Ai t m >)fi [ S 

Th'-? A;npi:icin r-»'l oration of Stot^, Co- my 1 : I< in im 
:-:riplo/oo3 (A7SCMI:) apncrvciat3S tho ooooc t:uni ty to oc^r.ont 
tont i:non'_' on oav t?n j i ty oofoce tiio Su'iconm 1 1 toe on Conoontia t ion 
arr^^ r:nploV'?G IJoncfitr,. 

Piy ecruity i-> a priority oi AFSCMr.'r,. Ainonq AFSC.lC's 
;nillion mnmSoco .ic^. 4 00,000 women, ovoc iiolf of -/hom ace clocicil 
•/oc'iors, th? cnp.,iir.?oc work pcinacily in ot hoc tcnditional 
•.yomon'r; jo":>s li\c soccotacy, nucr.o nnn 1 iocic ian . P.t/ eqiiity in 
critical to t:-.? ^coriomic wcLl-b(?ihq cf A"r>C.'U:'3 'jomon mor'.l'hpcr, an'! 
♦::i'-ir ranilior,, AFSCIIE PccsicJont Gccalr] Mcl^lnton has 3aid "tSg 
S.-jtt:lf?q[:oan.] for v;onr>n*G ci^Mfj is tho v/or''splacf? in! piv equity' 
I J t u' ir.Tu<? of the o iqh t i'r?r, , " 

AFlii:.*u:'s comjnitmont to pay priuity qoor, hf5c*-. to 1073 in tho 
r;tato of VMnhington where v/e initiatod the first public 3*='ctor 
nay 'equity r,tu-ly. sinco 107 3, AfSCME har, rlocjm'^n ted pay 
' 'Udcr ininat ion throughout the public nector, AFSCMK ir, pie iqer: 
to er.a^3 ica t ing pay d i r,cr iniina t ion th rough .collect ive bargaining, 
litigation and legislation. Collective bargaining c^ff-^rri th-? 
becjt hope for prompt correction of pay d iscr iyni na t ion . In the 
abGonce of litigation, it may also allow employers to avoid back 
pay and to phase in the equity adjustments over several years. 

Indeed,* thousands of AFSCMK- reore sent ed workers in 

traditional women's jobs have already received substantiiil oay 

equity adjustments at the bargaining table. In San Jose, 

California, Spokane, Washington and the State of Minnesota nay 
equity is being ohased in to correct the underpayment of \70fnerr* s 

jobs iden^fied by job evaluation studies. In St. Paul, 

Minnesota and the State of Me\/ Yo.rk, AFSC'IK and th? e")r>loyer5 

hav^ f^^gotifitel job evaluation studies, Anv disoarities 

uncfwered will be dealt v/ith through negotiations. '."ithout doing 

formal studies, AFSCMF affiliates in {le^v York City, Los Angel en 

and San .iateo County, California have negotiater) upgrad-^s for ^. 

female dominated clann i fica t ions 'which both parties have agreed 

are underpaid. 



ERIC 



13 



0 



\ 



133 

>■ ■ * 

AKGCMIS ^ar, 3tconqly r.upportod st^to an.i local Icq i:> ).a t i 

pay •?quity i n i t iat 'ivos . A .number, of r,tatc?G and locoLitios no-/ 

_r*/^av^? loqislativoly mandated pay equity studios under './ay • and 

♦)illG have been proposed in many others this year, 

ArsCME will continue its efforts it the hargaininq table and 

. in the .courts to eliminate wage discrimination. Vigorous 

♦ 

entorceiqent by the responsibl'e federal aqencie^- as pronosod by 
H.R. 5092 and fi.R. i599 ir, nepessary, hov/ever, if private 
enforcement is to be credible and waqe discr i-iination is to be 
eliminated. ^ 
I . The La'./ 

Sox-base d wage d i scr im ina t ion ■ i s illegal ~ even where 
the jobs a re totatflv different. This concept ir> no longer 
debatable. ** 

Title VU of the Civil Rights Act, as well as r-xecutive 
Ocd€?r 11246 , expressly prohibits' an employer from discr inii nat ing 
in compensation. 

* Nearly tiiroe years ago, the Sunreme Court declared that 3e:t- 

% 

based 'vagt-* d iscr imihation is ijllegal even if t':ie 30b s being 
compared are ?^ntirely d i ff er'>n t . ( 1 ) The Supreme Court foun.l that 
if a differential in pay results in v;hole or in part fron r^e^^ 
discrimination, such wage differential is illegal if tlie s';ill, 
effort and responsibility of the different "male" anil "female" 
jobs is equal o£ if, the difference in s<ill, effort anl 
responsibility does not Support the amount of the differential. 
A fair reading of Gun ther and of the Court's rej^usaT to rivie'./ 
the favorable lUE v. Westinghouse decision, (2) a companion case 
which was pending v/hen Gun ther v/as being considered and was 
implicitly approved by the Court, is that the Supreme Court held 
that sex-based wage discrimination is no less illegal than v/age 
discrimination based on race, national origin or religion. (3) 
These Supreme Court decisioflte banning discrimination in 
compensation in no way require that the comparison be restricted 
to similar or comparabJ.e jobs. In lUE v. Westinghouse , the^ job^ 
being compared were not similar, e.g., female assembly line 
workers, inspector^ and quality control workers were compared 




134 



'./it'n mnie j an i for s'iin')Lnrj clf;c'',G, mnnal laborers :ind ot'.ier 
^Usoinilar ]0)s. ^ 

Althou:]':! tho Suprone Co'irt in Gunt.Tor ninfle cloar that '-/aoe 
hi-iii is illfjrj^il, it ciii^ not gooII owt t^.o ■'^in^^ of eviionc'? that 
Tiat oroTc»rir:f>d in otlior c -ir>«?s . ( 1 ) TkC— Ci^cont lioldinrj in Ai'SCi'ir 

tn( 



V. .>t!it«? o c '.. i!jh inq ton niiowod in detail the kind of ovi<]onco 

that '/o'jld qonorilly ronult in a court finclinq of discr i million . 

AF*>C!tC ciso out moat on the Gun the? r skeleton. T!ie ovirionco 

c-?Iioa Mpon ^7 tlm ATSC'ir: court, v/hich roGultcd in i findin<;j that 

tho '^virlenco of d incr iminat ion in componsation was 

'\)V«rvhGl:ninq, " is typical of the practicor, of virt^ially nvory 

efiployor, private and public, including thG federal qovernn^nt. 

inch ovi>U:»ncG included: 

o statistical ovidenco that thare i^ a s tat In t ion 1 ly 

significant inverse correlation bet-./een sex and salary. 
For every 1% increase in the female popoulation of a 
classification the monthly salary decreased by S-l.Sl for 
>obr; that the elttplo'^r evaluated to be worth th9 same. A 
100% female job is i^id, oti average, $5,100 a year less 
than a 100% male job of equivalent value, T!ie chances of 
such a relationship occurring by chance is less than 1 in 
10,000. 

/ 

o Deliberate occupational segregation on the basis of sex. 
The employer placed classified ads in the "male only" and 
"female only" columns until the newspapers stopped 
accepting such ads because it violated Title VII. The 
ernployer also used classification specifications whi^h 
^ indicated a preference for male or female employees. 



Disparities in wages between closely related but 
segregated jobs such as Barber and Be^'avj t ic ian, 
Inst it'Jt ion Counselor and Classification Counselor, House 
Parent and Group Life Coi^nselor, and Duplicating Service 
Supervisor and Data Processing Supervisor, Tiie 
predominantly male jobs in each set v/ere consistently 
pa id no re than the predominan tly f ema le jobs requ i r ing 
similar duties. 



Disparities in salaries bet'/een predominantly male and 
predominantly female entry level jobs which require the 
same qualifications. Predominantly male entry level jobr^ 
requiring no high,, school were paid an average. of 10% more 
than predominantly female entry level jobs requiring no 
high school . Predominan tly male entry leve 1 jobs 
requiring a high school degree are paid an average of 2?% 
more than predominantly female entry level jobs requiring 
high school. Predominantly male entry level jobs 
requirin(^ one year of business school are paid an average 
of 19% more than predominantly female entry level jobs, 
requiring one year of college, predominantly male e,ritry 
level jobs requiring two years of college are oaid an 
average of 13% more than predominantly female entry level 
jobs. 



ERIC 



135 



o series of job evaluation studies performed by the state 
which show a 20% disparity between predominantly male and 
predominantly female jobs which require an equivalent 
composite of skill, effort, responsibility and wqrking 
conditions. The di3p»rt^ri*f^^€^fte4«4>y---4;^>i--"-^-Xhe.isJLatfi- 
updated the studies but took no action to cor roc t the 
discrimination. On the eve of trial, the state passed a 
bill calling for a 10 year phase-in of comparable worth. 
The judge did not make aa independent determination of 
job' worth. 

o Admissions by top officials of d i scr iminat^yt pr act ices . 
Successive Governors admitted that the job evaluation 
studies perfornved by the state' showed discrimination in. 
compensation. Reports by the Personnel Jtoards, the 
Governor's Affirmative Action Committee >/amij others 
documented discrimination in a variety of personnel 
prac t ices , 

o . Di scr imina t ion in the administration of the state's 
compensation system. The Campus Police Assistant 
position, which had to be filled by a v;oman, was indexed 

to t'no clerical benchmark iTistead of the security 
benchmark , a male 'tlass i f ica tion . Reclassi f ication, 
nctionq favored male employees over female employees. 

Ju^lge Tanner found on the basis of this and similar evidence 

that there . was . ovorwhelminQ evidence of "historical 

diner in\inat ion aga ins t women in employment in the State of 

;.'ash ing ton, and that discrimination has been, and is, manifested 

by Urect, overt and institutionalized discrimination." lie found 

the State had acted in bad faith and had violate'^ Ti tl^ VIJ by 
\ 

enq^T-jing in both disparate tre:^ment (intentional discrimination) 

an/3 disparate impact, 
t 

The consistent holding of these cases io that^a pattern of 
fliispar i ties irk wages between male and ff?male jobs is highl'/ 
oersuasive evidence of discriminatory intent. A disparity 
between a single male and a single female job may on occasion be 
e::plained away for idiosyncratic reasons. But a consistent 
pattern of disparities is difficult to er<plain on any gro^ind 
other than discrimination . By analogy, if Jack is selected 
instead of Jill for a promotion. In th<y* absence of any 
circumstantial evidence of discrimination it is difficult to 
infer discriminatory intent. But if the Jims, -Johns, Joes a,nd 
Jacks "are regularly selected instead of the Janes, Joans, Joanna, 
and Jills, the inference of discrimination is unavoidable. 



136 

B , Occupai: ional *^oqreqat ion and Wage Discc imination go 
Kand-in-GlQve 

In t'lo AFSC'IK caso, the court rtslisd heavily on the ov.id.^nco 
iho'/ing that tho StatO had doliborately nogrogatod its v/ork 
forco, e.g., olacirvj clansified adr, in the "nale" or "tom/ile" 
colunin, job der>c r ipt io^n t'lat d imi ted a job to on*^^ sp:<; st.if? 
"protective" la\/r, which prohibited women from doing certain work; 
and roferoncos in 'jnoloyor records to "pigeonholing" female 
ofpployocs, to avc?r!igo earnings for "men's" and "\/omen's" jobs, to 
poll': of supf^r'/isory and other employees to ascertain th*2ir 
reaction to opening "male" jobs to female ^employees , etc. 

Tbore is a symbiotic relationship between occupational 
s.?grogation and ' wage discr rmination . More importantly,, 
occupational segregation practiced by nearly all. employers leads 

to -and is ovidr>nce of v/age discrimination', 

"'■ ' - 

■''The initial assignmer>J?- and 'subsequent wage practices derive 
from a common set of biascG aboui-'v/oit?en^ and minority '/orkers. 
The employer who assigns women, for example, only to assembly 
line jobs because it believes they are not suited for heavier 
jobs, cwlso inevitably believes that the jobs performed by v/ornGp 
are cJ-f less value than the "physiq^" jobs performed by men, I'ut 
another vay, the same "employer who believes that women should not 
\^<^ placed in jobs of importance and responsibility, because of 
the employer's conception of the role of women in our society or 
of the "innate" abilities of women, is /almost certain to believe 

* ( \ 

that t?^e jobsS v/omen are permitted to perform have less value than 

the jobs performed by men. (e,g,, zoo keepers who ta';e care of 
an i ma lii typicallv are higher paid ^hnn female employees who 

?ngage in child care.) A prestigious study by the tiational 

Ac:idemy of Sciences an^l commissioned by F."OC concluded, "...the 

-nore an occupation is dominated by women the less it pays.''{^) 

Virffualiy every employer that hire«] women prior to the 

pisr.ag'^ of the Civil Rights Act del ibeca tely ^r;e:;-se''g reg-i t-^d its 

wor'; force, and p.1j.d its female employees a discriminatory wage. (6) 



137 



'.•it'a exceptions these employers are probably payinq an 

illegal wage today, in violation ot the Civil Rights Act and n.O. 

112'16. • " 

^ - ^ 

T^o Supreme Court told us three clocacles ago tfriat seqregation 

an.j eqyality a^jpfri^ c^oexist. In its landmark school segregation" 

case, Br.ov/n v. 3oard of Education , a 'inanimous Court held tha.S 

"(r*)eparatG educational facilities are inherently un.?qiial," and 

that racially separate educational facilities result in inferior 

education because " separa t ing the races is usually i nfcerpreted as 

denoting the inferiority of the Negro group, (7) 

the Suor^me Court's holding that seqreaation is "inherently 

■jnCjin 1" applies with equal force to race and sex* segregation in 

t]\n work place, i.e., a racially or sexually riGparate job 

fitructuro inherently results in inferior v/ag^s hocaase such 

:;tructnre "denotes the inferiority of the (female) group." (8)^ 

',,'h'^n an employer has segregated the work force, wage 

discr^inat ion invat/iably follows. 

C . Failurn to Pay Equal Pay Cor Equal !7ork is Only One 

4 

■ &i ^ited Torm of Wage Disc r jninat ion 



^.Although the Gun the r case clearly held that Title^VII was 

bi'oader t!>«n the EqOal Pay Act, some apologists for wage 

d iscr IrnincVt ion '*'cpcvt in'je to profess commitment to the goal of qual 

oav for equal workbu-fc oppose efforts to eliminate other forms of 

•/age discrimination. It is nheer hypocrisy to oppono one type of 

discrimination and support dTno^her. As the Supreme Court held in 

Gunthor , the limitation of the Title VII to equal pay cases: 

"moans that a woman who nis d iscr iminator i ly underpaid could 
obtain no relief - no matter ho\i egregious the 
d iscr imination might be. - Unless her employer also enoloyed 
^ a man in an equal job in the same estahJl^ishnent, at a higher 
rate of pay. Thus, if an employer hired a \/oman for a 
unique position j,n the company and then admitted that her 
salary would hav.t* 'been higher hAd she been male, the woman 
would be unable to obtain legal redress under petitioner's 
in ter pre tat ion . Similarly, if an employe r used a 
transparently sex-*biased system for wage determination, 
women holding jobs not equal to those hold by men would bo 
denied the ri^h t to prove that the system is a pretext for 
discr imi nation • " 
^52 U.S. at 170-179,. 



I4i 



1- 



'13^ 

ThG Squ3^|j^y Act appl ios generally to cases where men and 
.women are doing the ^ne "'job and would not apply to s^gre^ted 
johG. Those v/ho argue that the law applies only to equal pay for 
e«fnlal \/ork ihd i rfet tly encourage employers to sex-segregate the 
work force, thereby permitting discrimination on the erroneous 
theory that neither the DPA not Title VII applies, Th^ most 
substantial component of the wage gap is a't t r ibu table to 
diner imination in compensation for the work women now perform , 
^ Even opponents of the elimination of wage discrimination 
a^imit that one half of the total wage>gap is attributable to 
fliscr iminat ion. Dr. June O'Neill, a vi^orpus opponent of 
efforts to eliminate wage discrimination, testified on behalf of 
the unsuccessful Defendants in the AFSCME case. Dr. O'Neill 
testified that there is an approx imate* 40% wage gap between 
predominantly female jobs and predominantly male jobs. 
Approximately one-half of that disparity, according to Dr. 
O'Neill, can be attributed to non-discriminatory factors such as** 
education, training, experience, etc. She admitted that the 
other half of the wage gap cannot be explained by any factor 
other than sex . Ironically, Dr. O'Neill's testimony is 
remarkably consistent with the wage gap identified in the State's 
iob Evaluation studies. - Dr. O'Neill's testimony is also 
c^^K^istent with that of Dr. George Hildebrand, witness for 

^JSifl^ nT^*4^nd Dr. F. Ray Marshall, former Secretary of Labor, 

D. "' Comparable Worth" Is\Mot The Issue 

Title VII prohibits d iscr i^jninat ion in compensation. It does 
not refer anyvhere \o "oomparable worth." "Comparable worth" and 
"pay equity" are popular terms, not legal ones. The Supreme 
Court in G'in ther found that it wa^ not necessary to consider 
'compirable worth" in order to resolve ^Mestions relating to sex- 
based wage disci^mination. It is, therefore, clear that all 
cases involving wage discrimination shoulrl be resolved by EEOC on 
the banis of the statute, with no re'^erence to "comparable 
wor th . " \ 



FR?r a.-, 



139 

The .ultimate issue in a wage discrimination case is whether 
sex or race v/as a factor in v/age setting, A comparison of the 
dutie^s'of different jobs with the same employer is, of course, 
relevant evidence of discr ipiination. In the absence of 
discrimination, one would expect jobs v/hich require a greater 
composite of ski^>l, effort, responsibility and working cond it ion£3 
to bo paid more. Se«^pp. 27-29 infra . In V/ashington State, job 
evaluation studies found that there v/ere two separate salary 
practice lines — one male and one female; male jobs whichu^^ 
raqjjired greater skill, effort and responsibility were paid more 
than other male jobs and female jobs that required greater 3l<ill, 
effort and responsibility were paid more than other female jobs 
— ^ut on a two track system. The simple establishment of a 
unirail wage system for all employees will end wage 
discrimination. 

For purposes of Title VII, it really doesn't matter what a 
job is "worth," or v/hat an employer chooses to pay. ''/hat v^.oes' 
matter is^ that an employer may not di scr iminate^against its 
feraale employees who perform uotk of equal skill, effort and 
responsibility by paying* them less than it chooses to pay tlie" 
occupants of traditional male jobs. ^ ' * 

"Comparable worth" has become a red herring to obfuscate the 
real iss'jo of discrimination and the clear holding of Gunther . 
To avoid the force of Gunther / EEOC appears to have labelled 
every wage discrimination case "comparable worth", and therefore 
outside the holding in Gunther . In fact, any v/age discrimination 
case which is based in pary^on a comparison of job duties may be 
tried on the basis of disparajte treatment or disparate impact^, or 
both , depending upon the f actes. 

Sex bigots gene rally re fuse to talk about* discr imination''. 
They prefer to use the "compatable worth" tag to create the , 
erroneous impression that all employers v/ould be required to pay 
the same wage r^tes and that this would brj.ng about national wage 
controls\^ But the Title VII yardstick measures discrimination on 
the basis of how an employer treats its female and male 



140 



employees. Any comparison of job duties or wage rates in support 
of a claim of wage discrimination must be based on a comparison 
of the wages an employer pays the occupants of its male and 
female jobs. 

The Sxeciitive Branch Has Failed and Refused to Enforce th3 
Civil Rights Law . 

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department, 
of Justice and other executive agencies are obligated to enforce 
the. la-/, not to Gubstitut<2 their political judgment or 
i'loological philoso-^y for the^' dec ic ions of Congress and ^he 
• Suprene Court. A deliberate /efusal to enforce the laws 
constitutes malfeasance in office and warrants appropriate 
a'!:tion. . 

President Reagan' did not nominate any EEOC Commissioners 
until after August, 1981.- Until that time, EEOC had followed a 
consistent pattern, interpreting Title VII's prohibition ag5rinst 
iiscr imination in compensation to incorporate more than the Equal 
Pay Act. A brief chronology makes this readily apparent: 

1. Starting in 1966;, EEOC is|^ed Decisions (findings of 

"cause") applicable to bOth race and, sex-based wage * * 

discrimination where jobs were different. EEOQ made at least 10 

"probable cause" findin<^s in wage discrimination cases' between 

1956 and 1970 , e.g., Pl|an ter s Manuf actur inc^ Co . in 1966 

ld4sparity between blaqk foundry workers and white production 

workers.) The joint brijef of EEOC and the Justice Department in 

the Westinqhouse case [joints to this record with pride: 

] * . ^ 

...the Commission 'issued a number of decisions which sho\>ed 
that Vt did not d^em a finding 'of "equal work" necessary to 
: state a claim of wage discrimination i^asld on sex. Case 

i No. 66-5762 (decided June 20, 1968), 19V3 CCH EEOC 

I Decisions subsection 6001, n.22j Decision No. 70-112 

(September 5, 1969,),, 1973 CCH EEOC Decisions subsection 
6108; Cr&<4^5.ion No. 71-2629 (June 25, 1971), 1973 CCH EEOC 
Decisions subsection 6300. In these cases the Commission 
. f Jjnd lower pay scales for jobs held predominantly by 

fdmales in sex-segregated workforces to bo discriminatory. 
Thus it has beferi the Commission'g consistent position that 
tile depression of wages for females in sex-seq reqated jobs 
bgca«:;se such jobs are occupied by females, constitutes a 
; violation of Title VII (emphasis added) , ' 



14L ' 

2. Congrf^on roaCfirmed its intent to broadly prohibit 

t 

discrimination in employment on thr •.*sis of sex and race in 

enacting the 1072- am^ndm^snts to Titl'2 VH: W 

/' 

- " Dificr ininat ion ^^against v/omen ia no less serious than other 
forrifs -^^^oroh ib i tod omploY:nent practices and is to !^e 
accorded the name degree of ^ocial concern given to any type 
of unlav/ful discrimination.. 

II.U.U'50. No. 92-238/^2d Cong. , IstSess. 5(1971). S^ealso 

S^Rep. No. 92-415, 92d Cong,, 1st Sess. 7-8(1971). 

3. Regulations issued by EEOC in 1972 were consistent with 
• congressional intont to apply the same standards to se:c-basod 

v/ago discrimination claims as to race basqd wage discrimination 

claims unfettered by the equal work standard. 29 CfU 1504.8(a) 

provided that: 

The employee coverage of the prohibitions against 
discrimination based on sex contain^ed in Title VIT is 
coextensive with that of the other prohibitions conta inod in 
* . Title VIX. .. • 

4. In 1979 and 1980 EEOC played a leading role in Gunthgr 
and lUE v. West i nghouse . ^fter the district court initially 
dismissed the West ing house case, EEOC Chair Norton, to show the 
importance of this issue, assigned the then EEOC General Counsel, 
Issie Jenkins, to urge the district court to permit a special and 

expedited appeal to the Court of Appeals. Norton then requested 
Jenkins' successor, General Counsel Leroy Clirk, to argu2 the 
case in the Court of Appeals. The Justice Department and EEOC 
pla73d najor rolos in the both Court of Appeals and the Suptome 
Court in rebutting defenses made by 'Employers — defenses which 
w^re designed to oermit the oeroetuation of se {-based wage 
jliscrimination, (9) 

5. Within two months after th^ Supreme Court issued 

Gunther , EEOC, in August 1981, had adogiteda procedure to provide 

"Interim Guidance to Field Offices on Identifying and Processing 

Sex-baser3 Wa<^e' Discr imination Charges under Title VII and the 

2PA." The stated purpt>se was to provide "interim guidance in 

processing .. .olaims of sex-based wage discr iminationt in light of 

the retent Supreme Court decision in ^ounty of Wasliington. v. 

Gun ther . ( 10) The EEOC memorandum set forth comprehensive. 
1 



35-003 0 - 84 - 10 ' ' 1 4 O 



142 



procedutGs for " invej; t igat ing " and "evaluating sex-based waqe 

claims" and also provided that "counseling of potential charging 

parties should be expanded to. reflect the scope of Gunther , " The 

memorandurn alsoystates: 

...Title yil is not limited by the equal work standard found 
in the Equal Pay Act, 

...the decision brings sex-based wage discrimination claims 
into conformity, . .with the Commission's consistently held 
position in this regard when the charge is based on race or 
national origin. 

Gunther now makes it clear that Title VII is also aj^plicable 
to sex-based wage claims other than those involving equal . 
pay for equal work. 

The female telephone operator . ,iCOuld compare herself,,. to a . 
male who works in an entirely different job q^lassif ication 
(i.e,, a male elevator operator) , 

... Title VII principles apply to the processing and 
Investigating of wage discrimination charges regardless of 
whether they arebased on national origin, race, sex, color, 
or religion, 

■I 

It should be noted that th'is earlier Commission memorandum 
was addressed to the "Processing of Sex Based Wage Discr imina^tion 
Charges" and does not refer to the processing of "comparably ^ 
worth" charges, ^ ^ 

President Reagan's appointees to LEOC lost no time in 
expressing their opposition to correcti-ng sex-based wage 
discrimination. (11) Their strategy was simple; call everything 
"comparable worth" and claim that the Supreme Court did not 
approve a "comparable worth" theory in Gunther, S^e pp, 13-15 
supra. It came as no surprise, therefore, that the Commission 
dragged its feet, failed to carry out its mai^date to enforce the 

law's prohibition against wage discrimination and made clear td 
employers they had nothing to fear from the Commissi9n, 

Nevertheless, the lleagan Commission has renewed the guidance 
procedure each 90 days since its adoption. On the other hand, in 
our discussions with the Chairman and EEOC Commissioners, as well 
as the regional office staffs, it is clear that the procedure has 
been totally ignored; on several occasions , *we have sent the 
procedures to EEOC staff because they were totally unaware of the 
procedure. Indeed, in 1982, at the time of^^ke hearings before 



™" 14 o 



143 



three subcommittees of the House Post Office and Civil Service 
Committee, the Commission w^s on the verge of formally adopting a 
new policy statement which did not even acknowledge the existence 
of the present procedural regulation and which would have 
required the dismissal without investigation of all pending sex- 
based wage discrimination charges, (12) 

EEOC and Justice are actively seeking to raise from the dead 
legal issues that the Supreme COurt put to rest in the Gunther 
case. (13) For example, in commenting upon the AFSCME v. 

'Washington Statt cast, one Ju^tigt Dtpartntnt official qutcltd, 

"How do you compart tht pott and the plumbtr?" (N.Y. Tloei 

j January 22, 1984). (14) 

In Gunthtc, tht Supcerot Court agrttd with tht position of EEOC 

, and ^ht Juttlct Dtpactiltnt that Tltlt VII was not Umittd to 

caBes involving tqual ply foe tqual work. The joint EEOC and 

^ ■ Ju»tlct Dtpafttntnt bcltf\acgu«d thtn that; 

•Whtn CongcttB .aflitndtd Tltlt VII In 1972 , it confUmed tht 
•I 'nt of Tltlt vri to broadly proscribt all forma of 

dl^cr Inlnation In coraptnaat ion, against not atrtly thoat 
that art most blatant... Tht complalht alltgtd that womtn 
wtrt paid ittt btcautt thty wtrt yomtn . That atatet a cause 
of action undtr Tltlt Vlt." 

*' • Similarly, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rlq'ic? 

'.'illiam DI^odfoc•i Reynolds , i 15 ) without Mavmq tea^f K^s oninion, 

utitQ.J thatJ, "If th-* -./om^n with low paying jo'is Tid.in ?<7miI 

-jnportjnity to wor'< at the jobs with higher salaries but r.sver 

tooc ihe opportunity, Where's thf> 3c r Ini inat ion ?" -ci.y, Tinoa, 

Jm.iary 22, 1394). Thte best response for !lc , Reynolds is be 

found la the Justice Departnient brief filed by hia predecessor 

x;ith the Supreme Court In Gunthe r : 

Petitionees sugges t . . . tha t the purnoaes of Title VII wiH b- 
satisfled if women are protected only against discrimination 
In transfers and promotions. 9ut such opportunities may not 
always exist and some women, although qualified for the 
underpaid jobs that they presently hold, may not have tht 
skills necessary to secure other employment. Thai women may 
theoretically be able to move to jobs tn which sex-based 
compensation practices ar« not present is irrelevant 
Inasmuch as (the Act) prohibits 'H scr Immat ion not only In 
promotions and transfers, but also In compensation. 

Brief for the United States and the Equal Kmploymont Opporturilty 
Comrolsslon as amlca curiae In County pf Washington v. Gunther , 
at pp, 10-11, n.S. We assume that Mr. Reynolds /as aware of 
<*nd of the role tjls agency had pj.ayed in that -leclslon. 
In /l«v» of this direct and olatant contradiction of jihe focner 



V 



Solicitor General, Attorney General snd EnoC General Counsel, 
icrious ixjsstlons can and/shoylJ je raised wiin resooct to this 



ERIC 



li.' 



/ 



4 



\ 



■ r 

144 

. ■ " V, 

ac'.raihistcatlon' s commitment to enforcing existing civil rights 
laws', ^ > " 

E29C Chair Clarence Thomas correctly analyzes A?SCME v, 
State or \;anhinqton as a "straicjht G'jnther " case. "Who am I to 
challen<]c "the Supremo Court?" Thomas has asked rhetor ically. ( 16) 
v;hiie..tjho Chair correctly recorjnizedy^unl ike ;ic. Rr3ynol.ls, that 
h.? shoulfl not question the Supreme Cojjrt (and his Democratic and 
Republican prodecessors at EEOC) , he neg lected* to answer v/hy did 
^^OC no.t investigated the duplicative cliarqss filed against other 
states , %pun ties , cities and school boards?" ■» 

Mr, T]*iomas expressed similar worthy sentiments in 
congressional testimony a year and a half ago. He agreed that 
comparable worth is an issue of dj.sc r imina t ion ( 1 7 ) and testified 
that: ,f 

The Commission does place high priority on comparable worth 
issues(18) ...The members of the Commission have shown no 
hesitancy to use class act-ion litigation as an enforcement 
litigation. "(19) 

' • 

^ ...You have my commitment that we^will pursue very 

vigorously the inequities and discrimination in the feder^ 
w<5rk force. (20) *) 

has ta'<en no iction on v/age discrimination issues. 

- *■ ^ 

ESOC has not brought a single wage discrimination case to trial 

since the Gunther decision was rendered three years\ aqo, nor has 

it investigated and referred any public omployment cases to the 

Justice Department. 

/ 

Then on March 7, 1034 before the House Subcommittee on 
Manpower and Housing the Commission testifiei) it had, within thb 
last week, appointed a "working . group" to study t^e issue and 
tiiey expected to come up with a "comparable*wor th" guideline by 
May of 1984, a full 18 months after their initial promise to act. (21) 
Commissioner Clarence Thomas stated that all of the 256 cases had 
been reviewed "within the past I'^/eeks" and it was determined 
none were Gunther-type cases. (22) ^ 

I 



erJc 



14c 



145 

Indeed AFSCflE alone has had at least half a dozen wage 
discrimination charges pending against public employers in the 
last three years, including the Washington State case Which would 
have provided an occasion for Justice Department litigation. 

The Department under the current administration is also 
retreating from prior governm^^nt policy. Former Secretary 
Marshall recognized the need for vigorous public enf oiliCement of 
civil rights laws on fed^'ral contract programs, as well as the 
need to support and complement private initiatives. Former 
Assistant Secretary. of Labor would require equal compensation for 
women?^^ and men's jobf5 whenever the jobs *Vvhich may be. different 
in content ... requ i red the same skill, effort and respons*ibility . " 
As stc^ted by Elisburg, "yhe concept sounds so simple, one can 
o(ily wonder what has tak^n it so long to catch hold. "(23) 

s3ut here, too, the Reagan administration's Labor Department 
sold out the victims of sex-based w^ige discrimination. In 1978, 
the Department of Labor brought charges again%t Xerr Glass 
Manufacturing Corporation, based on the first Gun ther-type 
complaint of sex-based wage bias filed by a federal agency. The 
complaint alleged that Kerf had skewed the evaluation of its male 
and female jobs in order to maintain sex discriminatory wage 
rates (e.g., under the Kerr plan maximum physical effort 4as 
allotted twice as many points as maximum mental effor,t.) 

Desoite a 122 day trial in 1979? Reagan's Departmerll of 

S " - 

Labor settled the case on August 13, 1902, by washing out the 

wage discrimination claims and all related back pay, and agreeing 

that the Department would not take any action based on the ^Kerr 
job evaluation plan (or changes made therein) until at least 

4 

n35.(24) Since most of the remedial aspects of the settlement 
focused on allowing women to compete for predominantly male jobs, 
» it appears the administration is following the Justice Department 
line of telling women in underpaid jobs that they should simply 
"get a fjnan' s, job, " otherwise "where* s the discrimination?" 



146 



HEOC, the Justice Department and OFCCP all have the 

authority .to investigate and litigate suspected «;ag3 

discr i.-nination claims even without a charge hy a union or 

employee. We-Unow as a fact that the Westinghouse pav structure 

exists throughout that, company anc? the rest of the electrical 

manufacturing in«]ustry. And we kno\; as a fact ti^at the practices 

of Washington' State exist throughout public employm<^fit , Surely 

there is one case of wage d^i^Jrsj^ mi nation v;hich even this 

administration would consider a violation of Title VII, 
V, 

III. Bigotry is Not Defensible . , . 

Four basic excuses ase used to defet/^d discriminatory v;age 
practices: A) "apples and oranges*'; b) "market"' c) "cost" and 
d) "blame the victim." ^ ^ / ' 

' ■ .' 

A, Apples and oranges is not a defense . 9^ 

' ) \ ■ 

The apples and oranges argument is that it is not possible 
to evaluate dissimilar jobs. But this- is exactly why joiS 
evaluation was developed^ As stated by Arbitrator Bertrarn 
iSQttlieb: ' , / 

From 'the very beginning job evaluation plans'v;ere developed 
for the purpose of devising a. yardstick for measuring 
dissiriiilar jobs: For deternini ng "Hov; much one job is 
v/orth compared with other jobs" (Occupational Rating Plan of 
the Industrial Management Society, IMS, Chicago, 1037). » If 
all jobs were similar there would have been no need for job 
evaluation plan^.(25) • ^ 

Virtually every large employer use some method to evaluate the 
internal relationship of different jobs, based on an objective 
evaluation of the composite of skill, effort, responsibility and 
working conditions**tequired by the jobis. (26) 

For mora \han 50 years, empl6yer3 have been praising job 
evaluation. Employers themselves upheld the job evaluation 
concept when it was in their own interest, ^uring passage of the* 
Equal Pay Act (EPA) . (27) Consistent vJith that legislative 




147 



hintory, jU'l'jos have been comparing "apples and oranges" under 
the EPA for 20 years. FrequontlV a judge must determine on the 
::)af?is of. job evaluation v/liether men's and v/omen's jobs equal 
or nubatant iallv equal" '.vithin the meaning of the 2PA. Thus in 
ThompGon v. ?awye.r , 678 F.2d 257 (DC Cir. 1082), a case 
involving the Government Printing Office, a legislative agency 
whose rates ace set by the Joint Committee on Printing, the judge 
compared the female job of journey bindery worker with that of 
the male job of» bookb indor , and found that the federal government 
v/ir> paying women a djL scr imina tory wage. (28) 

' \ 

Male an^ female jobs can be compa red* wi thou t a formal job 

y " . 

evaluation plan,' e.g., male, bar'oerjs^v ., female beauticians, male 
liqjor slnre clor!<s v. female school teachers, male toll 
collectors V. female medical stenographers, nale tree trimmers 
*7. f«?male nurses. Similarly, it does not take an expert 
evaluator to recognize that discrimination exists where the 
qualifications for nntry level jobs are the sane (e.g., high ^ 
school* qr adua t ion is the sole requirement), and the rater> for the 
"female" jos are consistently 20% below the male jobs, as in the . 
AFSCi'^uq casot See p. 7 supra ,(29) * 
B. The marlc'et is not a defense . The '! market" argument is 
tiiat \;ager> are estahlished by supply ani demand, not 
d iscr inina t ioi1». ^ "Wo -lo not discriminate," employers proterA. 
"v;e jjr,t pay the qoing rate." There are several fallacies in this 
argument. 

:■• i r n t , th.3 market itsolf is distorted by .-User ininat ion . 
^^ijpnly and demand does not work f or ^tr ad i t ionally female jobs. 
The well known and long-time shortage of nurses in this gro*Gly 
underpa id' ^^of ess ion vividly demonstrates that snpolv anO demand 
appear to havew little effect on the wages of female-dominated 
profess ions , 

Second, most v/age discrimination in. induntr ial employment is 
a product of "initial assignment discrimination," as it v/as in 

✓ 



ERIC 



■ ■ ■ . is, 

/ 



148 



lUr: V. V/QGb Inrjhourli? and AKSCME v. St.ito of './.ir^hlna t:on . 
Initial asGignmcnt discrimination occurs when entry Icvol 
ims'cillGd applicants or appl ic-.:ints \/ith' equal r>'<ill5 are assigned 
to fUfferent jobs on the Ijasis of sex, artd female employees are 
0-1 id loss. 

IllHjl' the courts have consistently refused to sanction 
"lav/-br caking" because "others do it." The Supreme Court and 
lower courts havo specifically rejecfted the market defense. 

Although Corning Glasg (30) involved the ::qual Pay Act, the 
Supreme coui't'n comment is equally applica'^jle to broader claims 
of v/age bia:^: 

7"-!'-' U f f nco^jtial . . . ^^^U reflected d job market in •./hich 
Cornip.g could pay v/onen less than n'^n for the sane v/ork. 

t'V? company too'; idvantige of such, a i tug t ion nay be 
■ir.d r^t -\ndable as a natter o f economics^ but its 
dl i" f<^cont ial ne7<?r theless became illegal once Con^rens 
enacted into la-; the principle of equal pay for ecual '/ork . 

The v/hole purpose of the Act v/ar> to require that ther^o 
MopireGr,ed wages iho raised^ in nart as a matter 'oj simple 
:?tintice to the emnloyees th^Tnselves ^ but also ar, a matter 
of mar'-'.et economics, since Congres* recognize<l as v/ell that 
liacr iminat ion in './agGn on the basis of r>e:< 'const itut-^s an 
unfair method of competition'/' (At 2a5,207, emphasis added) 
t 

In riorris v. Arizona Governing Committee , 671 F.2d 330 (9th 

i<;^Cir. 19B"2) , at 335, 'affH in part, rev ' d in part 51 U.S. «Lav/ V^eek 

5243(1983), the Court ntates: 

Title Vfl has never been construed to allow an emplny^^r* to 
maintain a d iscr im inato*y practice merely because it 
reflects the market place. 

Our society has advajpced to the point where only a bigot would 

publicly state that because of the "market" Blacks and Hispanics 

r.hould he hirc^d for less money, or that because the tragic 

unemployment rote of black workers they should he hired for le^s „ 

money, " , 

The Civil Righlls Act was designed to eliminate 
discrimination. "Following the market" is designed to 
perpetuate discr imination« 

C. Cost is not a defense , The "cost" argument araserts 
that -/e must perpetuate \/age discrimination because the "cosf* of 
correcting it would destroy the economy. Congress did not pl£^co 
a price tag on the cost of correcting discrimination. 



t 



149 

In Los Angeles Department og Wa_tec iVi Pov/er v, Manhart , 
435 U.S. 702{a.978), the Supreme court stated: 

■ In essence the Department is arguing that the prima facie 

\ showing of discrimination based on evidence of' different 

\ contributions for the respective sexes is rebutted by its 
* demonstration that there is a like difference in th^ cost of 
prov iding bene fits for the respective classes . That 
argument might prevail if Title VIL contained a cost- 
justification defense comparable to the affirmative defense 
in a price discrimination suit . But neither Congress nor 
the courts have recognized such a defense under Title VII. " 
435 U.S. 702, 716-717(1978) (Emphasis added) 

Pi^ Jur}qe Tanner commented in AFSCME v. State of Washington , 

•^Defendants" preoccupation with its budget constraints pales when 

compared v/ith the invidtousnes of the ongoing discrimination..."" 

33 FEP Cases 024. 

. J 

D. The victims are not to blame . 

As discussed, supra , the Reagan administration attempts to 
blame the victims by suggesting that the "cure" for sex-based 
wage di scj^iminat ion is for women to change jobs. Again, only a 
bigot. w6uld tell black workers who are receiving a discriminatory 
wage rate that if they don't like it, they should get a higher- 
paid job. As Judge Tanner eloquently commented in the AFSCMS v. 
State of Washington case 

...this coifrt can see no realistic distinction betv/een 
d i scfr imi nation on the basis of race or sex. The results are 
just as invidious and devastating. There is nothing in 
Title VII that distinguished between rac3 and sex in the 
employment discrimination context. 

,33 FZP Cases 825 n.22. 

The suggestion to "change jobs" is another one of this 

Administration's "blame the victim" tactics. Reagan officials 

, have already blamed the hungry for "voluntarily" going to soup 

kitchens and blamed the unemployed for being \7ithout a job when 

thoy could^re.id the classifieds." Telling women wl^oso^tjobs are 

illegally underpaid that they can work elsewhere is like telling 

a mugging victim^ to move to another neighborhood. 

Michael Horowitz, counsel to the director of the Office y 
Management and Budget, apparently believes that "comparable 
worth" would /'help middle cal^s white women at the expense of 



15 J 



aso 



blacks. (N.Y. Times, Jan. 22, 1984), The 0MB official ignores 
the fact that black women will be a major beneficiary of the 
eradication of sex-based wage discrimination. Significantly, 
. however, 0MB appears to assume that the victims, rather than the 
lawbreakers, should make restitution and that relief can be 
obtained only at the expense of the victims of discrimination. . 

IV. Recommendat ions 

AFSCME commends Congresswoman Oakar for her commitment to 
pay equity and her leadership in initiating pay equity 
legislation. 

H.R. 4599 , the J'ederal Employees Pay Equity Act of 1994 is a 
first step tov/ard eliminating wage discrimination in the Federal 
v/orkforce. The federal government is a major employer in the 
United States. Many federal eiaployees work in predominately 
female jobs. 

As an employer, the Federal government should be concerned 

1 

about discr imin()tory v/age rates. H.R. 4509 provides the vehicle 
for renoving discr imin<^on within the federal government and 
sets an oxamnle for the rest of government and private industry. 

HR. 5092, The Pay^Equity Act of 1984 promotes pay equity in 
the private ser:tor and provides vigorous oversight of the federal 
agencies cha-rged ./ith enforcing the laws against sex-based wage 
^ discrimination. We applaud this bill for requiring detailed 
reporting requirements by the ESOC. As s<ated earlier, the EEOC 
under the Reagan Administration has promsied much but d<^livered 
nothing on pay eqyity. EEOC and Justice have a legal duty to 
enforce the lav/ as interpreted by •the Supreme Court. 

Cone lusion 

. Existing laws - Title VII and Executive Order 11246 - 
prohibit discrimination in compensation. Advocates of equal pay 
for work of equ.il value have won significant legal battles irt the 
courts - and -./e need to act. Now is the time for pay equity. 




151 



(1) County of Washinton v, Gunbhec , 101 S.Ct32242 (1^81) . 

(2) 631 F.2d 1094 {36 Cit, 1900), cert. den ., 452 U.S. 967 (1981) 

(3) "(The Supreme) Couc t. refer (s") to discc imination on the 
basis of race, religion, sex or national origin as they are 
equally nefarious and equally prohibited." lUE v. v/estinghouse , 
631 F.2d 1094, 1100 (3d Clr . 1930), cert.deTT 452 U.S. 967. Seo 
also Los Angeles Dgpart^nent of WatoC & Power v. Manhart , 435 U.S. 
702, 709 (1978) ; Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321, 329 (1977); , 
AFSCftE V. State of Washington , 33 FEP Cases 808 at 825 n.22 
(W.D.V/ash. 1983) . 

(4) This is standard practice for the Court, which usually 
restricts its rulings to the facts of a particular case. 

(5) Treiman and Hartman, Women, Work and Wages: Equal Pay for 
Jobs of *Equal Value, National Academy of Sciences, National 
Academy Press (Wash. D.C. 1981) at 28. 

(6) Thi^ various state "protective laws" ' required some d^gr'^e of 
segregation; those laws did not, however, require oaying women a' 
discriminatory wage. Although most of these lavs hav<=» been 
superseded by Title VII and are no longer in effect, the 
continuing effects of such discrimination constitute evidence of 
discrimination today. 

(7) 347 U.S. 483, 494, 495 (1954). 

(8) For a more complete discussion of this issu'?, see "Separate 
3ut r<jual" - vTob Segregation and Pay Equity in the Wake of 
Gunther, Nev/man and Vonhof, University of Illinois Law Review, 
Movembor, 1981. 

CM Shortly after th« Gunther decision was rendered, t-i? National 
AcniJ-niy of Sciences published a study earlier commi3lipr)nod bv 
V.KCX: on v/.Tgo discrimination and job evaluation. The st'ily 
conf:lu.iod that "...jobs held mainly by women and minorities are 
p.-jid loss because thoy are held mainly by women and minorities." 
The study concluded that, "In our judgment job evaluation nlans 
provide Pleasures of job worth that.. .nay be used to discover' ind 
reduce wage discrimination,..," Treiman & ilartnan, Women, VJork & 
Wages: Sq'ial Pay for Jobs of Equal Value, ^lational Acad-^mv of 
Gcinncos, .National Acailemy Press (Wasii.D.C, 1901) at ^3, 95. 
(10) The memorandum of August 25, 1981, was unaninously adooto(? 
by the Commission which they included: J. Clay Smith, Acting 
c;iair; Daniel E. Leach, Vice Chair and Armando M. Rodriguez. 



(11) The first Reagan-appointed EEOC General Counsel Michael 
f^onnolly announced that he believes in the ."market" concept and 
that he would not bring "comparable worth" lawsuits because the 
cemedy would result in "severe economic hardship" for the 
discriminators. The present Chair and Vice Chair of the 
Commission expressed similar unfavorable views and indicated 
their lack of support for "comparable worth." 

(12) After being criticized at the hearings, the new policy was 
not adopted-if See testimony of Newman, Pay Equity: Equal Pay for 
Work of Comparable Value, Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees 
on Human Resources, Civil Service & Compensation & pJraployee 
Benefits of the Committee on Post Office & Civil Service, House 
of Reprsentatlves, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., September 16, 21, 30 and 
December 2, 1982, Part I, hereinafter "hearings." 



. : ...... -ir.'J- 15 J 



152 



(13) A favorite techniqu* is to cite cases decided before the 
Supreme Court's decision in Gunther. Citing pre-.Gunther ca9es 
ia like citing Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537(1895) after Brown 
V. Board of Education, sui?sec.tion 47 U.S. 483 (1954) (separate but 
equal is inherently unequal) . Pre- Gunther cases are only 

lnttcuctlv« Intofac th«y trt conaUtant with Gunthtfc. Evtn 
bcfort Gunth«r, th«r« \fcm ^ucctttful wt9« dltcrlBlnttlon cltlu, 

•.9., KyrltiL V. Naitica tltctrlc; 461 ^.Supp. B94(DNJ 
1978)1 Laffty v. Ngrthwctt AUlintt, 967 *.2d 429{D.C.Cir. 1976) 
and 642 r.2d 376(0. c:Clr. 1960). 

(14) At dUcutt*d tt pD. 13'13 iupct, proof of wtqt 
dltcclainttlon Cltlva Involvtt conptclton of and fanala joba 
with th« aaaa am]^loy«r only. Ha knov of faw aaployara who taploy 
both po«ta and plufbara. 

(15) At, *«tynolda alao atattd that, 'I hava abaolutaly no doubt 
hla daciaion la wrona.* (N.Y. Ttmaa, Jan. 22« 1984} Tha 
tcanacript of th« dKlal la not avan avallab)la yat «nd Mr. 
Raynoida. aada thla atat«a«nt- without c<v^«v of any pact of tha 
cacoci).. Paynolda haa adnlttad ha waa adpuc^taly quotad. y 

(16) 1084 Daily Laboi; Repprt, ^5, AA:7. j ' . . 

(17) Hearings at 401, 

(18) Hearings at 377. 

(19) Hearings at 402. • ... 

(20) 16 ., p. 403. 

(21) Statement of Clarence Thomas in response to a question by 
Representative Barney Frank regarding the EEOC's activities on 
pay equity cases. 

(22) The EEOC statistics underestimate the number of charges ^ 
pending. We understand that the estimate does not include AFSCME 
charges against Connecticut, Hawaii, Wisconsin , Los Angeles, 
Philadelphia, Chicago, University of California and New York 
City. ' 

(23) Daily Labor Report, Np. 230, November 29, 1978. 

(24) Decree, Case No. 77-OFCCP-4 , ' U . S . Deportment of Labor 
(August 13, 1982) at 3,5,6,12. 

(25) Testimony of Mr. Qottlieb, »who /specializes in job 
evaluation cases, before Carol Bellamy and Andrew Stein, 
President of the New York City Council and Borough of Manhattan, 
respectively, on E'ebruary 7, 1984. 

(26) "Almost two-thirds oC the adult population in the USA are 
pay-graded by job evaluation schemes Job Evaluation , 
Patterson, Thomas T. (London Business Bobks) (1972) at p.xi; 
Paul Katz, "Comparable Worth", Federal Service Labor Relations 
Review, Spring, 1982, 38,39. ■ ' 

(27) In Corning Glass Works v. Brennan , 417 U.S. 188(1974), the 
Court held that the fourth affirmative defense in the Equal Pay 
Act ("any other factor othec than sex") had been added to protect 
bona fide non-discriminatory job evaluations. See discussion of 
legislative history in Ne\>nnan and Vonhof, "Separate but Equal - 

. Job Segregatrion and Pay Equity in the Wake of Gunther," 2 Univ. 
of Illinois Law Review (1981) 

(28^ "See Laffey v. Nort hwest Airlines , 567 F . 2d 429 

(D.L Cir . 1976), cert^. 434 U.S. 1086(1978), vacating and 

remanding in part, ^affirming ^66 F.Sup. 763 

(D.D.C. 197 3) and 374 F.Supp, 1382 (D.D.C. ,1^^^^^,^^%!?;^° 

H odgson V. BrookhaveTi General Hospital , 436 F.2d 719 (5th 

Cir 1970). ("Nurses" and "Orderlies"). ...... 

(29 A formal job evaluation' may be required in orde to structure 
an appropriate remedy, but not to determine liability. Many 
kinds of cases — antitrust, school deseq regar ion , etc. — 
require technical support at the remedy stage. 



ERLC 



15o 



153 



STATKMKNT OF KITA V/AAaACK, EXKCIJTIVK VICE PRKSIPK^T, 
NASSAU LOCAL CIVIL/SKRVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, 
AFSCME LOCAi, 1000 . , 

IVfis. Wallace. Good morning. My name is Rita Wallace. I am the . 
executive vice president of Nassau Local Civil Service Employees 
Association, AFSSWE Local lOaO. ' ' ' 

I have been a Registered nurse for 40 years. I graduated from St. 
Vincent s Medical Center in New York City in 1943. I worked as a 
nurse for 12 j^ars in thd Bronx Veteran's Administration Hospital, 
and for 11 years at Columbia Presbyte'rian Hospital. 

In 1968 I was hired,'by Nassau Couhty, New York City, as a head^ 
nurse in the intensive care unit at the A. Holly Patterson Home. 

In- 1979 I was elected executive vice president of local 830, and ' 
since then ^ have worked for the union on relief time from the 
nursing home. 

Nassau Local 830 represents 21,000 employees of Nassau County 
{government. includes office, hospital, prison, and social service 
employees. . More than half of, Nassau County employees are 
women. ^ - * • ^ 

The members of 'qiy union beii^e've we are the victims of wage dis- 
crimination by Nass^tu^ounty. Although unequal pay for women 
has been wov^fn ^into the^iatiric of our economy for many decades, 
the improvert>5hpnent, of wom6n workers is ^consequence we' can 
no longer tolerate. " - 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires that no employer may^ 
'discriminate on the basis of sex, even when the jobs are entirely 
different. My union demands fairness under the law. We demand 
^^qual pay for work of equal value. 

In May and November of 1983 my local filed EEOC charges 
against Nassau County. We charged that county jobs arfe sex segre- 
gated, and, that the county systematically pays women's jobs less 
than men's jobs, which require the safnie skills, effort, and responsi- 
bility. 

We also asked Nassau-Oounty to conduct a job evaluation study, 
and make the appropriate changes in the pay scale as required by 
title VII. ^ ' ^ ' 

The EEOC took no fiction on our ch^arges, and Nassau County re- 
fused to do a job evaluation survey. AFSCME did its own study of 
coiyity jobs using the C9unty's pay records. Our results were star- 
tling. They confirmed our worst fears. / 

First, most county jdbs are se^ segregated into female jobs or 
male jobs. Of the 671 job classifications jn Nassau County over two-^ 
thirds; that is, 450 of the jobs are filled exclusively by males, or ex- 
clusively by females. 

Second, women's jobs are at the bottom of. -the pay scale. Al- 
though only half of the county employees are women, women make 
up 90 percent of the employees in the three lowest pay scales. 
These jobs, and these grades, are domestic workers, food service 
Workers, nurse's aides, clerk, and clerical assistants. 

Third, our survey showed that .women's jobs are undervalued. 
This means that even though the skill,^ effort, and responsibility re- * 
quired by a female job is the same or greater than the skill effort 
and responsibility required by a' male job, the women are paid less. 



For example, in Na«S^ County a registered jiurse irtust have 
degree from a school of nursing, and must.pass the State licensing 
* exam. She must know anatomy and physiology, dietetics. She must 
maintain hospital records, and reports. She supervises subordinate 
employees. She administers narcotics^ and drugs. She is constantly 
involved in stressful situations, and must have good judgment in 
life and death situtation^. A registered nurse is g'racfed at U, and 
had a starting salary of $17,000 a year. • ' 

In contrast, a correctional officer, a- male jpb in Nassau County, 
requires graduation from high school and no other experience. Tha ' 
H ^ * correction officer is under close supervision, and requires little in- 
dependent judgment. The bulk of the job 'consists of -standing ^ 
guard, and escorting inmates' to and^ from meals, bathing, ana 
recreation. In Nassau County a beginning correction officer *i§ 
graded at VS. Two steps highefr than thai, of the registered xiursQ, 
and has a starting salary of $22^000 a year. . . 

I will give.^ou another exanriple. A clerk/stenographer, a female ' 
job, requiring graduation from high school, supolerheritary courses 
in stenogr^tphy and typing, 1 year of experience and passing a 
preem52^05^ent test. The clerk/stenographer ^ust know grammar,* 
^ spelli\g» arithmetic,' and hoW to operate various office machines. 
• ^ Her.dfiiie^ include dictation, typing, answering correspondence, 
proofreaoahg, maintaining^records and financial accpunts, and' op- 
erating computers. The clerk/stenographer is a grade 4, starting at 
$r2;000 a year. / • 

On the other hand, a laborer, a male's job, requiring no formal 
education, experience, or testing. His only requirement is that he is' 
in good health, can follow directions,^ and can handle simple tools. 
His job consists of sweeping, mowing the lawn^ shoveling snow, dig- 
ging and loading equipment A laborer works under close supervi- 
sion at all times, and the job requires limited judgment. The labor- 
er is graded at g;rade 5, and starts at $13,000 a year. 

'My union believes that the inequities here^ afe obvious. It doesn't 
take fancy scientific techniques to figure out that the county is 
paying women unfairly. Yet, the*EEOC has refused to act on our 
charges. The law is clear. And so is the responsibility of the EEOC 
to enforce the law. Youl* bill, Congressworfian Oakar, focuses na- 
tional attention on pay equity,, and- the need for vigorous Federal 
enforcement of the law. V 

For myself, and- for- members of local 830 in Nassau County, 
thank you for allowing me to appear hewte you today. I will be, 
happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

Ms. OAKAk. Well, thank you vgry much. ' * - 

Let me ask some questions, and 'either of you can respond. Your 
union has been vigorous, probably one of the mo*e vigorous unions^' 
to support wonrven s efforts in t^he area of pay equity. But all don't 
belong to unions for better or'worse. I think it's worse myself,'but 
anyway, they don't belong to unions, and they don't have the re- 
sources to go to the Supreme Court, as the woman had to do. with ♦ 
respect to inequities toward private pension laws. 
' What do you say to those womfen that ddn't have aji organization 
such as yours supporting them in their efforts? Should they be l^ft 
to the whim of the EJJOC, or .this administration? do you rec- 
oncile all those women out there that aren't being prolected'?| 



ERIC 



/ 155 

Ms, Rock. If employers knew that the Federal Government 
would vigorously enforce the l^ws you'd sea the practices — the em- 
ployment practices change. It s like any other law that's violated, if 
people don't hear that the law will be enforced they violate the law 
if it's convenient, an8 it certainly is convenient and financially lu- 
ci'ativo to violnte the-law relating to pay equity. 
v> And in short of vigorous Federjal enforcement, those women who 
aren*t under cojlective bargaining agreements have no hope for 
> their situation changing. 

Ms. Oakak. We^l, let me raise your point about EEOC, and the 
' ^)() pe-nding charges in EEOC. And we'll ask this question of Mr. 
Thomas. 

But they claim that' there's not one charge that can be classified 
as a (lunthi'r type charge. You don't ^gree with this. 

Can you tell the b^ubcbnjmittee what charges AFSCME has filed 
with Ell^lO^that are Gunther type? If you have a lot of them, you 
can submit it* for the record. 

Ms. Rock. We would be glad to submit it for the record. It would 
Help us In submitting it for the record if we understood clearly 
what EEOC pieant by a Gunther type case, because I think'^^S^ 
have several charges that are clearly comparable worth chargS^J^ 
and how narrowly they choose to define Gunther might affect what ^ 
charges we felt— fit. their definition. We will submit some that fit 
our definition, and some that fit theirs when we know what their 
definition of it is. 

Ms. Oakar. Well, then, I guess the £ij)propriate question is to ask 
* the definition, isn't it? 

Ms. Rock. Yes. 

Ms. Oakar. For the record. 

Ms. Wam.ack. Ms. Oakar, may I interject for a moment? . 
Ms-. Oakar. Yes, sure. 

Ms. WA^.I.A(:K. We have one classic case that was filed with 
KK()('. A gentleman who filed the claim — because we believe that 
this issue is just not a woman's issue, it is a worker s issue. 

Ms. Oakar. Right. 

Ms. Wam.ack. And as a male social service worker, he filed a 
claim stating that because he was found to be in a female dominat- 
ed category that he was paid less salary. He chose to take a promo- 
tional exam, the same knowledge, skill, effort, responsibility, and 
became a probation officer. ^ 

Just by moving from a female dominated position to a male 
dominated position as a probation officer, with no change in any 
other educational experience, he acquired a $(),()()() increase in 
salary. And you tell me that EEOC can't pick on that and focus in 
on the pay inequity, then I say that complaint is there to be found, 
and should be heard. 

' Ms. Oakar. Well, we know — we gave examples yesterday where 
child care workers were paid less than those ^who take care of dogs 
because one is female dominated, and one is male dominated. We 
suspect there is a question as to where society's priorities are 
placed.' 

We've heard rumors that the Justice Department is thinking of 
intervening in the State of WashingtonAiase. If they would do that 
what would be your reaction, Diana? 

r 



A- 



157 



into title Vll only tho four affirmative defenses of the Equal Pay 
Act. ^ 

The Commission also vigorously sought to establish good case law 
on this issue. The Commission brought suit against Marathon Hllec- 
trie Manufacturing Corp., and intervened in the lUE vs. Westirifi- 
house suit before the district court of the northern district of West 
Virginia. 

In both cases, the Commission challenged the employers' practice 
of intentionally setting the wages^of females, but not the v^ages of 
males, below the employers' own Determination of the value of cer- 
tain jobs. Both of these cases were successfully settled. 

The Commission also argued its position in the Third Circuit 
('ourt of Appeals as amicus curiae in lUE vs. Westinghouse and to 
the Supreme Court in Gunther, 

(hinthcr ended the long debate concerning the extent to which 
title VII and the Equal Pay Act should be read together by holding 
that title VII incorporated only the four affirmative defenses of the 
Equal Pay Act, and was not limited by"" the equal pay fgr equal 
work standard. 

Therefore, a sex-based wage cl^im could be brough't under title 
VII even though it did not allege that men, and women were per- 
forming substantially equal work. 

Due in part to the earlier efforts by the Commission in laying 
the groundwork and asserting its position in the area of interna- 
tional sexrbased wage discrimination, plaintiffs have been able to 
successfully ^l^gue .their wage claims in such cases as Gunther, Wil- 
kiriH V. University of Houstpn, Taylor vs. Charley Brothers,, and 
more rec^tly AFSCME vs. State of Washington, 

While the Court in Gunther recognized that the parameters of 
title VII were broader than the Equal Pay Act, the decision made 
clear that the court was not considering a claim "based on the con- 
troversial concept of comparable worth. ' ^ 

The statement of purpose in H.R. 5092 indicates that provisions 
of Federal law currently exist "which declare that equal pay 
should be provided for work of eqUal Value." To the extent thai 
equal value includes the concept of comparable worth, it cannot be 
stated with certainty that such a statutory mandate presently 
exists. Indeed, that question was specifically reserved by the Su- 
preme Court in Gunther, 

Our primary difficulty in commenting on H.R. 50()2 stems from 
the ambiguity in the provision of equal pay for work of equal 
value. Does work of equal value in this context mean jobs involving 
equal skill, effort, and responsibility? 

If so, the Commission has been discharging its mandate in this 
respect since assuming jurisdiction over the Equal Pay Act in 1979./ 
On the other hand, does work of equal value include jobs clpimea* 
to be of comparable worth? If feo, it would be helpful if this wejre 
made clear. 

For the purposes of this testimony, we are assuming that eoQal 
pay for work of equal value is a narrow concept within the wage 
discrimi^iation area which encompasses the concept of comparable 
worth. 

If that is the case, and assuming that the purpose of H.R. 5092 is 
to address comparable worth, then the reporting requirements in 




35-003 0 



84 



1 1 



this bill are designed to generate data which exceed what would be 
necessary and would be extremely costly to implement. 
Ms. Oakar. What, would the cost of this bill be? 
Mr. Thomas. We have not broken it out in dollars. But it would 
require us to divert significant numbers of our staff, from the en- 
forcement functions to the reporting functions. 

Ms. Oakar. Do you think that it would be hard for you to pre- 
pare a report oh how you have reacted to the cases that you hdve? 
Mr. Thomas. We receive over 10,000 wage based- 
Ms, Oakar. And you cannot ^ive the Congress some kind of an 
».^idea of the status of sex-based wage cases? 

Mr. tnoMAS. We would have to, under this bill, do much more 
than that. 

Ms. Oakar. That is right. So you saying that it wquld mean more 
staff for you, is tfiat the cost? . 

Mr? Thomas.' It would mean more reporting to us. And assuming 
that our resources remain at a constant level, it would require a 
diversion of our current staff to a reporting function as opposed to 
an enforcement function. 

Ms. Oakar. Well, what if Ck)i^ress too)c the small percentage of 
the cost overrun on the helicopter projefir^^ iand gave you a few more 
people, do you think that you could d/6 the job of reporting to the 
Congress? / 

Mr. Thomas. I am not familiar with the program. 

Ms. Oakar. You do not feel any obligation to report to Congress 
or the Pjesident of the-United States? 

Mr. Thomas. We report to Congress and to the President of the 
United States in numerous reports noW in addition to an annual 
report. ; 

Ms. Oakar. Do you feel an obligation to educate those firms? An- 
other part of the bill asks that you institute an education process 
to help those companies who are acting in good faith, who want to 
change some of the pay structures. ' 

You do not think that you could handle that, is that the prpb- 
lem? ' \ 

Mr. Thomas. We are currently doing that. We are required to 
^ that uhder title VII now. We are doing that. And in fact, we wei 
criticized by the civil righte commi6iity for' diverting resourc^ 
from enforcement to the educational function. 

Ms. Oakar. You are currently doing that. We would be happy 
know how much you think in staff it would cost you to enforce thi^ 
proposal that we have. We thought that it was a very modest prc^ 
posal. We are not asking for any change of the existing law. W^ 
are just making sure that occasionally 70U becom^e advocates fo* 
^ enforcement of the law. 

Mr. Thomas. Well, this bill; from our standpoint, requires us no^ 
to be advocates, but rdther to be reporters. I have no problems witil 
Reporting to Congress. We do it currently in the agency. And one or 
our initial projects when I went to EEOC was to make sure tha| 
the reports were done on timd. And they are now. % } 

However, we are talking here about 10,000 cases per year, most 
of which dp^ot involve issues raised either by Gunther or in thi 
" area of cdm parable worth. 



ERIC 



-4 n - s 



159 



Ms. Oakak. You do not think that 0MB would give you the addi- 
tional resources to fulfill the^mandate in this proposal? ^ 

Mr-THOMffs. I think that ultimately 0MB does not give us re- 
sourgps. We get Jt from Capirol Hill. And in fact, 0MB has been 
willing in the paSt^years to give us more than Capitol Hill has 
given us. ^ 

Ms. Oakar. So they have added to your staff, is that what you 
are saying? 

Mr. Th^omas.,No, OMB 

Ms. Oakar. They have proposed added staff people? 
Mr. Thomas. No, OMB has given us— 

Ms. Oakar. You are really going to tell me. This committee is 
very knowledgeable about wherfe the Federal employees are and 
where the RIF's have taken place. 

Are you telling this committee that OMB has proposed that you 
get more help, not less? 

Mr. Thomas. The budget that I have submitted in each year that 
I have been at EEJOC has been more than has been passed on the 
Hill. That budget was cleared by OMB. 

Ms. Oakar. I think that it would be interesting for you to subn^it 
for the record, if not today, then later, what yoU think the cost of 
this bill is. You made a generalized statement abo^it additional re- 
sources. We did not think thAt it would cost the Goivernment any- 
more to become advocates, or that the cost was not^^oing to be a 
factor. ^ '^>^^ 

So if you think that there is going to be a cost inyolved, we 
would like to know what that is. Please proceed. 

Mr. Thomas. H.R. 5092 would require the Commission to report 
on all charges that contain an allegation of unlawful discrimina- 
tion with respect to wages or to other forms of compensation on the 
basis of sex, race, color, religion, or national origin. 

In other words, the Commission would be required to report ex- 
tensively on all wage claims filed urtder title VII and the Equal 
Pay Act, not only on claims alleging unequal pay for work of equal 
or comparable value. 

Wage claims under the Equal Pay Act or title VII involving 
either substantially equal work or intentional disc^mination are 
filed far more frequentlyHhan comparable worth claims. 

The Commission receives approximately 10,000 wage charges an- 
nually. H.R. 5092 would require the Commissim- to generate a 
number of different reports on these charges wnich would be ex- 
tremely resource and labor intensive. 

For example, section (C)(4) of H.p. 5092 directs the Commission 
to write a brief description of the allegations contained in all wage 
discrimination charges. To accomplish this for 10,000 different 
charges is virtually impossible. 
^ If the intent of H.R. 5092 is to identify Commission activity in 
the area of equal pay for work of equal or comparable value, th6 
extension of these costly reporting requirements to all types of 
wage charges would be of little value. 

Section 3(A)(1) of H.R. 5092 proposes^that EEOC conduct and pro- 
mote research in the area of wage discrimination. The Commis- 
sion's Office of Program Research has recently initiated a research 
project which will attempt to estimate some of the costs of imple- 



/• . 

160 

rhenting comparable worth in the public sector, and to translate 
these costs into estimates of the effect on employment levels. 

The Commission has also formed a task force on sex-based wage 
discrimination which will among other things resolve the backlog 
of comparable worth charges currently in the EEOC inventory. 

A more extensive research effort in the area of comparable 
worth would require a major shift in personnel and resources away 
from the charge processing, compliance, and litigation programs of 
the Commission. 

Section 3(Aj(3) of the bill proposes developing and implementing 
a program to provide appropriate technical assistance to any public 
or private entity requesting such assistance to eliminate discrimi- 
natory pay practices, and implei«ent'the principles of equal ^ay for 
jobs of equal value. • 

Acquiring such expertise and providing that type and level of as- 
sistance to any public or private entity requesting such assistance 
would be prohibitively expensive. 

Although the Commission does provide advice through the Com- 
mission opinion letter and the voluntary assistance program, legis- 
lating a provision to provide a specific program or a specific service 
solely in this area is a unique concept which removes from the 
Commission its ability to effectively mabage its resources. 

H.R. 5092 would compel the Commission to funnet its resources 
into this one area to the possible detriment of other Commission 
programs, and leaves the Commission vulnerable to^unlimited re- 
quests for specific technical assistance. ' , 

Section 3(D)(1) (A) and (B) state that the Commission shall con- 
duct a study, in consultation with organizations representing Fed-, 
eral employees, of the procedures established by the Office of Per- , 
sonnel Management to establish classifications of positions in the 
competitive service, and the actual practice of the director and 
heads of other Federal agencies under such procedures^ 

The EEQC presently has only . limited expertise in the^tee of posi- 
tion classification in the Federal competitive service. It aibuld be 
not^ that 0PM has already begun a feview of the Feleral job 
evaluation system. | 

That concludes my statement. And I will be happy to anlwer any 
questions that you rhay have. \ 

Ms. Oakar. Thank you very much, Mr. Thomas. | 

Mr. Thomas, I think that it has become more clear than lefore — 
because of your testimony actually — that rather than dea^g with 
sex-based discrimination, you are trying to create phantofi^s to jus- 
tify your inactivity. ^ f 

Rather than debating terms and counting costs, tli^^hair feels 
that you Qught to be processing charges and litigatifflT cases. And . 
when it comes to inequality and costs, the cost thatSis really of 
great concern to the" Chair is the insensitivity and inaction to the 
working \vomen in this country and the inactivity of EEOC. 

The record of EEOC in this area has been really shameful in my 
judgment. Instead of trying to fight the law and try to get into 
what the terms are and so on, why do you not become vigorous 
about what you are supposed to be doing as director o]^4his very 
important department. ^ 

When are you going to starj. Veally doing your job? 



161 



Mr. Thomas. Madame Chair, first of all, since I hav^been at 
EEOC, 1 think that 1 can say that we have spent an enormous 
. amount of time making the agency more effective than it has been 
in the past. 

• Ms. Oakar. Effective for whom? 

Mr. Thomas. For everyone. We not only have sex discrimination, 
we have race discrirtlination, national origin discrimination, age 
discrimination, and handicapped discrimination. We are not, at 
that agency, at liberty to put one group above another. We have to 
take theai as they come. 

Now in litigation, over 40 percent of our cases involve sex dis- 
•^rimirjation. Over 50 percent of our charges involve some allega- 
tion of sex discrimination. We have a very active litigation pro- 
gram, particularly under the Equal Pay Act, 

We do receive large numbers of the comparable worth type 
cases. The cases that we receive are strictly within current case 
law. And we deal with those very rapidly. . \ 

The small number that we have accumulated over the past sever- 
al years of *^00 plus cases of over 50,000 to 60,000 cases involving 
sex-based wage discrimination are the most difficult cases, Those 
are the ones that do not fit within the Giinther case ^aw, and do 
not fit within the case law that- has been currently developed at the 
district or circuit court level. 

Ms. Oakar. fcet me ask you. When you appeared here 2 years 
ago before Congresswomen Schroeder a,nd Ferraro and myself was 
really hopeful. 

You stated in your testimony in the fall of 1982 that comparable 
worth — which you are questioning today as being part of the law or 
not — was, to use your own word, a, priority. You stated th^t EEOC 
was really going to be vigorous, and you* were in the process of 
looking through the cases for an appropriate litigation vehicle. 

Today, 18 months later, you still have not processed a charge. 
And the issue of sex-based wage discrimination or, to use your 
word comparable worth, is before a work group. * 

I do not consider this to be the record of someone who views sex- 
based wage discrimination charges as a priority^. In fact, you are 
treating this important issue more as something to be ignored and 
studied to death tl^n to be acted upbn.^ 

And people out there, Mr. Thomas', do not fe^l that they can 
waiti You know, the average black woman gets 55 cents for every 
dollar a man makes. She is the absolute black-bottom poorest 
person in the fiountry, particularly when she gets older than when 
she is younger. AncJ white women do not do too much better. They 
get 61 cents for every dollar, which is.Jess than they g:ot in 1939 
-when they were getting 63.6 cents for every dollar.. 

You are the one who has^ the power to be the chief advocate for 
what the Is^w states today. 

Why are' you not instituting cases to begin and to further define 
and clarify the laws as the EEOC did in the past? 

Mr. Thomas. Madarfi Chairman, I have a respbnsibility— firstr of 
all, let's go back historically a bit. You refer to black women. I do . 
. not have to be lectured or told anything about the income of black 
women. My mother was a^mestic making about $20 every two 

■ * 1 " 



m l6o 



. 162 

» 

weeks working for a white nurse. I do not think that it is appropri- 
ate to lecture me. 

Ms. Oakar. I do not think that I was lecturing you. I was stating 
a fact about black wonmen and white wonmen. If you want to take it 
that way, then that is fine. 

Mr. Thomas. Well 

Ms. Oakar. I do not think that I was lecturing you.ti 

Mr. Thomas. With respect to this agency, what we hSve attenmpt- 
ed to do in areas, particularly those areas where there is controver- 
sy; where there is unsettled case law; where the case law is against 
.. the agency; or the courts have not dealt/\^ith the issues, we have 
been particularly careful to make, sure^that we do not lose more 
than we gain. / 

I have relied on the staff at the EpOC that I inherited. We did 
not bring in a group of political activists from the Republican 
Party to work on these issues. These are the same career people. 
Six of the top people Stt the EEOC are women. The people who 
head up this entire area, both enforcement and the legal counsel's 
shop, are all wonten. ^ 

I do not believe that they are insensitive to this issue. The prob- * 
lem is 

Ms. Oakar. You set the tone, and this administration sets the 
tone as to what they are going to be doing with their time and 
what the philosophy will be. Now you told this committee that this 
was a priority with you 2 years ago — almost 2 years ago. 

What have you done about it? - 

Mr. Thomas. At that time ^ 

Ms. Oakar. Are you forced not to do it, is someone telling you 
from on high to take it easy on this issue? 
•</4*: Mr. Thomas. At the time that I appeared before this committee, 
,wa had what we felt irt the private sector — and we have to look pri- 
,*-tt\arily at the private sector, because our litigation authority does 
not extend to the pubHc sector — and we would prefer to litigate our 
own cases where we have much;' much more success — we thought 
that we had at that time a great case. 

After investigating, which took quite a bit of time, the case just 
stmply fell apart. We still have the case in-house, but it simply did 
not develop the way that I thought it would. And I was very opti- 
mistic at that time. . ' 

At the same time, we had to develOl^our own internal policies, 
not^only on the issue of wage discrimination pr sex discrimination 
across the board, but on just making Gunther a part of our daily 
ijperations. 

Although I found myself repeatedly signing off on a 90-day 
notice, we had to develo]) a compliance manual section which I 
made top priority, so that our field people would know how to 
handle these cases. V 

In addition, we had to develop additionaMn-house guidancwon 
the issue. We ^ave^done^ll of those things Tow. Wage discritrWia- 
tion, sex-based wage discrimination^ has been a priority at the 
Commission. I have pushed it. ^ . ^ 

The only cases that have not moved, and those are the cases for 
which Twill personally have to accept responsibility, are those 250- 

ERJC lb>j 



plus cases which have not fallen within ttie Gunther framework or 
the existing law" on sex-based wage discrimination. 

Ms. Oakar. What is your interpretation, of the Gunther frame- 
work? 

Mr. Thomas. The cases'that we normally — and again, to be more 
* precise, I would have to rely on our attorneys here — consider to fall 
within the Gunther case are tho^e situations in which the employ- 
er has evaluated the job, and the jobs are not then paid in accord- 
ance with that evaluatiojn— with the women receiving less money 
or less pay under that system than men. Or the jobs are not paid 
up to the level that they are being paid in the case of men. 

The cases that we have in-house do not include that. They do not 
include the kind of employer evaluation that you have in Gunther 
or in AFSCME. 

Ms. Oakar. Have you found a vehicle to further develop the law 
in comparable worth? * 
Have you found any vehicles for that? 

Mr. Thomas. As I indicated, we were looking in the private 
sector. We do not have litigation authority in the public sector. It is 
better for us, at the agency, to have a private sector case, so we can 
litigate it up through the district courts and the circuit court and 
/ the court of appeals. 

We thought that we had such a vehicle. We are now— the gener- 
al counsel in a national litigation plan— pushing the field to devel- 
op again such a litigatipn vehicle. ^ \ 

As you remember when I testified before you thg^last time, we 
did not have a general counsel, mid, accordingly, did not have a 
litigation plan of any sort. 

We think that we have a national litigation strategy now which 
will yield us not only better cases in the sex discrimination area, 
the sex-based wage discrimination ar^a, but^n all other areas. 

Again, th[^ specific issue is being pushed by the general counsel. 

Ms. Oakar. Well, this is the third year of this administration. 
You mean you have not found one public sedtor case thai you could 
recommend to the Justice Department for litigation? 

Mr. Thomas. Historically cases that are investigated under title 
VII are routinely recommended to the Justice Department. 

Ms. Oakar. Well, what are routinely rewmmended? 

Mr. Thomas. Or referred to 'the Justice Department, not recom- 
mended. We do not make recommendations to 

Ms. Oakar. Well, what routinely referred cases have you recom- 
mended to the Justice Department? 

Mr. Thomas. Welf, they are our standaifd title VII discrimination 
cases. Under the Equal Pay Act, we can handle those. Again any 
cpse that alleges sex discrimination that we have fully investigat- 
ed, and where conciliation has failed for. enforcement, we refer 
those to the Justice Department and the public sector cases by stat- 
ute are referred to the Justice Department. 

Ms. Oakar. Are you going to rnake a recommendation to the Jus- 
tice Department with respect to" whether or not they should inter- 
vene in the Washington State case that was discussed earlier by 
AFSCME? 

, Mr. Thomas. Ves, we certainly w^ll. It would go much further 
than simply a recommendation. 



ERIC 




^ 164 

Ms. Oakar. What do you plan to do? 

Do you think that the^Justice Department should intervene in 
that case in a negative fashion? What would be your recommenda- 
tion in that instance? ' 

Mr. Thomas. Well first of all, it would be the Commission's rec- 
ommendation, and' that requires a vote by the Commission. And I 
do not think I should prejudge that. 

We take our recommendations, of course, from our general coun- 
sel, who has indicated that he has yet to receive the entire record; 
and certainly has not reviewed the entire record. 

I think that it would be prudent for me to await that. 

Now, my staff has advised me that the AFSCME case is simply a 
straight Gunther case. That it is not — does not in any way expand 
the Supreme Court's ruling in Gunther, There is a difference of 
opinion, obviously, by the Justice Department about that. And I am 
Certain that is one point that we woul(J(^ave to clarify before any- 
thing was done. 

Ms. Oakar. So, again, it is going to depend on what framework 

or what definition you give to Gunther. 
Mr. Thomas. Well, the whole issue we are talking about here is 

definition. Wage discrimination has been defined by the Supreme 

Court to include certain things. 
Qn^of the areas which the Supreme Court specifically declined 

to touch was this notion of.comparable worth. The district courts- 
Ms. Oakar. That does not mean they were opposed to it, by the 

way. 

Mr. Thomas. But the District Courts have not picked up the 
slack. And have not come forth and indicated that the issue of com- 
parable worth constitutes wage-based discrimination. 
- Ms. Oakar. You have started a system that you discussed with 
one of my other colleagues, and established a kind of work group to 
identify the parameters of wage discrimination under title VII, job 
evaluation systems, and whether or not you should advocate any 
job evaluation is that correct? 

Mr. Thomas. That is right. 

Ms. Oakar. Have you established that work group to expedite 
the process or just to slow it down? What is the purpose of it? 
M^ny women who are paid so inadequately, do not have always th^ 
resources to hire attorneys to go to Federal court; they depend on 
EEOC to bring down some kind of decision. 

Is the function of this work force to-really get on with the show 
or to stall around? 

Mr. Thomas. Historically, the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission and Justice Department have only litigated about 5 
percent of all employment discrimination cases. 

The rest of those cases have been litigated by private parties. 
That is a problem across the board— whether or not an individual 
is in a position to litigate his or her own case. 

There is not a whole lot thaC'I do to w^te time, we do not have 
that much. The work group that I have established is attempting to 
resolve a very difficult issue which has not been grappled with 
either, in the judiciary or in the legislative branches of Govern- 
ment. 



ERLC 

1 



Kif) 



The isHUo of C()inparal)le worth wAs speciHcally rejected by Con- 
gress when the Kqual Pay Act was passed.' When I testified before 
this committee in September of 19K2 there was some talk of intro- 
ducing legislation to fill the gap. 

Senator Kennedy indicated that he felt that it was necessary to 
_^--jintroduce legislation to fill the gap. 

It is obvious that the ^ssue is not a settled one, either in the leg- 
islative branch, the executive branch or in the judiciary. 
. Ms. Oakak. Well, the Chair feels the laws are on the books. 1 
think that you are guided by two laws that are unquestionably 
there: title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act. They 
are right out there for yOu to take action! 

And the (^hair is just concerned that when you establish another 
level of bureaucracy to define, terms and develop criteria as you 
' have put forward in terms of establishing this work group; that it 
is another way of not getting on with the process that women so 
desperately need. 

For example, in your interim guidance report that is dated Sep- 
tember IT), 19H1, EEOC established procedures for its field offices to 
use, f»r investigating sex-based wage claims; you spell out a signifi- 
cant data gathering exercise. 

What benefit is there in gathering this data when EEOC still 
does not have a policy, and thus cannot use any of it to move the 
case forward? Why are the guidelines still interim after 'IV'i years? 

Mr. Thomas. The Commission, first of all, does not need a policy 
in the area of (}unther. We have an investigation manual. We have 
a Commission that can make a decisioi^ on specific cases. 

JSfone of these cases *that have come forward on their face can be 
decided without investigation. What we are attempting to do is if> 
carefully assess the cases that we get in and to make a decision. 

The cases, as I have indicated to you, that we have inhouse are 
not cases that fall within current case law. " 

Ms. Oakar. How many cases are there? 

Mr. Thomas. 

Ms. Oakar. You have not found one case that clearly relates to 
disparity and inequity. There is not one 

Mr. Thomas. I thi^ we are confusing a couple different issues: 
We are not saying fhat there is no disparity in income or that 
there is not inequit^I mean, that is a much, much broader term. 

What we have to do when we go into court, we have to have the 
existing case law at our side. We have got to be in the position to 
win. 

Ms. OAKAir. Well, that is what I am asking, you do not find the 
law on your side. Is that what you are saying? 

Mr. Thomas. The cases that we have inhouse, they do not fall 
within the ambit of current case law. 

The cases that have been before the, district courts as comparable 
worth cases have been summarily rejected. In the face of that,^ I do 
not think that it would be prudent for us to continue to take those 
cases before the same district courts. 

What we have to do is find the case that we can win. We thgught 
that in the private sector— when I was here in Septerhber of 19S2 — 
that we had such a case. I think that with the effort that we are 
making now within the Commission, we will find such a case. Bui 



ERIC 



16 J 

J . 



V 



ERIC 



166 

the 260-plus cases that you are talking about, do not fall within 
current case law. And we do not think that without further investi- 
gation or with something different in those cases, they are going to 
be winnatle. 

Ms. Oakar. AFSCME had filed some charges that related to the 
state of Ohio, the city of Los Angeles, the State of Wisconsin, the 
city of Philadelphia, the city of Chicago, Nassau County was men- 
tioned earlier, Reading, Pa. school district, and there arp a host of 
other cases. What about those charges, are there any merit in any 
"one of those? 

Mr. Thomas. Some of those may be in the field; I am not familiar 
with all of those charges. As I indicated, we receive—— 
' Ms. Oakar. Well, they have been pending since. 1980— some of 
' them since 1981. That is 2 years and 3 years later. 

Mr. Thomas. Well, as I indicated, if they have been filed, they 
are in the field perhaps being investigated. I am not familiar with 
all individual cases of those 10,000 sex-based wage discrimination 
cases that we receive each year. * 

And I am certainly — if we did havg them, not at liberty to dis- 
cuss them, because they are confidentiality provisions. 

Ms. Oakar. Can you tell the Chair whether or not you'feel there 
is substanqe in these cases that have been highly publicized? . 

Mr. Thomas. I am not at this time familiar with all of those 
cases personally. They may be in the various district offices around 
the country. I^m certain that if they do have them there, they are 
being investigated. We could report back to you and to the commit- 
tee on that. Again,' we have to abide by the confidentiality provi- 
sions o^the statute. The parties are .obviously free to publicize their 
cases,-Hc)ut we cannot. 

Ms. Oakar. But there has been an action, and some have been 
pending since 198LThis is a j^nion that has resources to represent 
its members. 

What about the women who are out there, and the men, who do 
not have those kinds of resources? If you do not act on those, how 
does the public really expect that the law is goirf^ to be enforced 
with somedegree of vigor? 

Mr. Bosco? 

Mr. Bosco Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Thorp^fe, I have to say that I have not really followed your 
performance or that of your agency, and I can certainly understand 
that there is tremendous difficulty in understanding all the con- 
cepts, much less the legal precedence that have been set, and what 
may be happening in,50 different States. \ S: 
ut let me start from the beginning in one way: What is. the dif- 
nce between work of equal value and comparable worth? 
Thomas. I do not know. ^ 

yix) Bosco. But you make a distinction in your testimony 

; Mr., Thomas. The oreblem for us in legislation like this, if we do 
inot have a clear d^nition— the broader the definition or the more 
subject the defimtion is to nilmei:ous interpretation — the greater 
difficulty we Fiave in enforcing it. y> 

If by this you mean comparable woHh, I think it should be set 
out. \ 



^ 170 



I 



167 

Mr. BoHco. But oven in saving lhat, what do you( mean— what 
would you say work of equal value is as opposed tlo comparable, 
worth? Are they one and, the same? Or are you saying that there is 
a disputfe over what Congress meant in the terminology? 

Mr. Thomas. That Congress meant in what? 

Mr. Bosco. In its terminology? 

Mr. Thomas. Wdl, as I remember— and I am not that familiar 
with all the personnel rules and the context i?k which that term 
was used— it was. talking about the valye placed on jobs within the 
Federal Government as it related to jobs in the pri\ate sector. And 
that tTieJobs would be valued, I think, at some fair way,, based'on 
some reference to the private sector. 1 

Now, in the comparable worth are^ it is the injcrinsixi worth of 
the job or value of the job that we afe talking about; whether or 
Yiot the job of the nurses is intrinsically the same value of a job of 
a corrfJctions officer, 

Aj\A without, again, reference to th^-open n^arket. But irt the 
personnel legislation, there is specific rlferen^ce by Corigress'to the 
private sector in valuing the jobs. ^ ■ \ ^ i • 

Mr. Bosco. All of us -agree there i^ a problem. You mentioned 
that yoUr mother was a domestic; Congressman Oberstar said his 
mother worked in a shirt factory and made infinitely less than 
men. did. ' 

Mr. McCarthy said that jCalifornigi has all kinds of laws and reso- 
lutions on4.he books, but they have not made much progress in the 
w^hole thing. ^ \ ^ 

I would guess that everybody agrees that the problemr exists, but 
there^ is probably a lot of confusion as to w^hat. would, be a step-by- 
step process fdr solving this problem. ^ 

I think that, first of all, you would have to resolve what jobs are 
worth the same as other jobs, And that alone Would be a monu- 
mental effort Sax, thai is for the first step. Then, there would be 
other stepsi after that; 

•But given that this is a loaded gun at the head of virtually every 
city, 'county. State, and the Federal Cover nmelit,- because of these 
eourt cases that are coming down, an'd because of this historical 
pattern; it is a loaded gun at the head of all private business, prob- 
. ably> for very much the same reason. 

Is anybody actually putting together, a step-by-step, ' how to Jo 
it*' manual? You know, this is what we mean to the private sector? 
This^s what we mean to the city government in Woodland, Calif., 
to what you should be thinking about; what you should be doing 
wkht now. Is anybody doing that? 

/Mr. Thomas. I am certain that someone is doing it. It is not aS. 
/dear. Things are not as settled as that^Of course, we do have, as I 
indicated earlier, our own educational program in an effort to edu- 
cate the public ancL employers as to what the existing law is. 
Giving an example Athe way something was handled a little bit 
differently: When tjflproblems arose a^ to whether or not treat- 
mewt of pregnant enTijloyees in certain ways in the past were dis- 
criminatory, after we did attempt to advance the law. Congress 
took the next step and amended title VII, to make sure that, again, 
the adverse treatment of pregnant women would constitute dis- 
crimination. Again, that was after a Supreme Court case. ^ : 



168 

No one, to my knowledge, is putting together, at least in the Fed- 
eral Government, a step-by-step manual. 

I think the first stop is to determine whether Or not comparable 
worth constitutes sex-b^sed wa^e discrimination. We can enforce^ 
sex-based vvage discriminaticm laws. . 

Ms. Oakar. Would the gentleman yield on th4t4)oint. 

The point is that Mr. Thomas appeared before the committee on 
September 30, 1982, at which time hfe testified that the issue com- 
parable worth was a priority. 

It was not until February 7, 1984, that the Director of the Office 
of Legal Counsel received a memorandum from Alvin Golub, Direc- 
tor of the Office of Program Research, entitled ''Resource Needs 
Related to Comparable Worth.'' 

In the memorandum Mr. Crolub suggests that there be a creation 
of a work group such as the one that w^e discussed earlief 

So, yoUr question about anyone wanting to do something about it 
or wanting to define it is & very pointed one an^j I think the facts 
are that, while this was sUpposed to be a high priority, EEOC has 
just gotten around to thinking about it by suggesting a bureaucrat- 
ic level to dekl with it. 

Thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. Bosco. Thank you. Madam Chair. 

I am a little less convinced that the law is that 'clear in alf these 
areas, j^think the law should be clear. That's sort of what I'm get- 
ting at, because I know the people that work in all these local gov- 
ern mtots, on the boards of supervisors and county commissioners 
and wnatever. ^ y 

And I know that they are not aware of all the considerations 
that they should be making, and I guess what I'm asking is, is this 
going to grow up like Topsy, one court decision at a time, one State 
here, one State th9re,nill we finally over the years know what kind 
of a problem we'ra facing, orf-jis there somebody that's going to 
comev up with some legislation that'll put it to rest maybe a little 
quickertthaaJchatr 

Mr.' Thomas. And I don't have all the answers. I want to refer 
back to one thing for a second, though. One of the efforts that I 
^ attempted to put forward in this area when I first came on board 
was to get some guidance in-house to our own people on wage dis;^ 
crimination. 

We did not have that guidance. We do have it now. Again, that 
was at my insistence and my initiation. I will admit that things 
don't' go as fast as Td/like to see them go in Government, but I 
think we are on the move now, and I think that w^ will have the 
guidance now. 

I feel that there are certain areas where perhaps Congress could 
make some changes. I think that it is clear to me from having tes- 
tified on the Hill on a number of occasions that there are some 
misconceptions about what we are and we are not able to do. 

I think that personally, and this is my personal point of view, 
that one wav to britT|^Spore knowledge to the Hill in the area of 
title Vil and wage discrimination laws and a lot of other things is 
to first of all make frhem applicable to the Hill. 

I think that the same wage discrimination problems that you 
have in society at large, the differentials, the disparities in income, 




• are as prevalent on the Hill as they are other places. And I think it 
would be clear if they are applicable to the Hill that the EEOC— 
although there is a small area where there's disagreement/ where 
there is confusion, and so forth— that by and large, of the 10,000 
cases that we get in, the law is absolutely clear, and it would be 

, clear in any instance. There's just a small area where there is dis- 
agreement, both legally, ideologically and philosophically, in this 
society. 

Mr. Boyco. Well, thank you very much. I know that we could go 
on forever on this, but I really hope that we can come up with 
some direction, perhaps from you personally, or your Commission, 
or the administration, or whatever. 

I would like to see us come up with some clearer direction than 
we have, because I think there are a lot of people with expectations 
and a lot of people who will ultimately have legal responsibility 
who have no idea what we're even tsilking about in this field. 

Thank you. Madam Chair. 

Ms. OakaR. Thank you. I want to tell the chairman that I agree 
with you about the Hill, and hopefully our bill that relates to Fed- 
eral employees serves as a benchmark on that. I've brought up the 
subject repeatedly, and as a' matter of fact I serve on^a task force 
that relates to wage discrimination on the Hill. 

And I'm proud to serve on the task force, and feel very strongly 
about it. I agree with you that we shouldn't be skirting the law as 
well. That's why your role is very important. You have the jurisdic- 
tion to covcftr all of us in enforcing the law, and being an advocate 
for equity.' We do not— if we're not paying our secretaries, or if our 
legislative assistants or our administrative assistants are not paid 
com.parably to their male counterparts, you'll have the responsibil- 
ity to take Us to task on that, when tho'^e charges are filed. 

There's the tremendous lack of^advocacy, and this defining of 
terms and establishing work forces seems to perpetuate the prob- 
lem. All we're asking you to do is to do your job. 

Thank you very much for appearing. 

(The following I'esponse to written questions was received fo;- the 
record:] . * ' - 



7 • 



ERIC 



EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ^COMMISSION 
WASHINGTON. D C. 20506 



MAY 2 1984' 



Honorable Mary Ro8o Oakar 
Chair 

Subcommittee on Compensation 

anil Employee Be ne f 1 1 8 
U.S. House of Pa p r ese n ta 1 1 ve 3 
406 Canno^ House Office Buildinq " 
Washington^ D. C. 20 51 5' 

Dear Ms. Oakar: 

Attached are my responses to the Committee's additional 
quBBtiong regarding the pay equity legislation. 

Also, I un-derstand that a Bt&ff member from the 
Commlss^n's Office o f * Co ngr e s s a 1 Affairs will be 
meeting with your staff next week as a foUo^i-up to 
this res pon s e • 

If we can be of further aasiatance to you or your st"a^T|> 
pleaseletmeknow, 

Sincerely^ 




Clarence Thoma 
Chairman 



Question 1 (a) 



Vou also stated In your testimony that EEOC was, and once 
again I quote "looking for appropriate litigation vehicles 
to further develop the law In comparable worth." Can I 
take It that you have not found such a vehicle? Is this 
the only reason you have not pursued a "comparable worth" 
case? 

Answer : 

To date, we haye not found a suitable litigation vehicle for 
clarifying the state of the law with respect to wage discrimi- 
nation, If the Wage Discrimination Task Force Is unable to 
find such a case In headquarters, we will attempt to do so 
through our field offices. I have already Informed the dlsr 
• trlct directors to look for and notify headquarters of pay 
equity charges that they receive. 



171 



The Commission's Interest In the area of wage dl$crlmlnat Ion 
remains a priority. On May 1, 19.^*^, the Commission approved 
the Compliance Manual Section, 633 "Wage Discrimination". 
This section provides guidance to the field In processing 
Gun the r type cases. A copy of Section 633 will be pro- 
vided within the next few days. 

Question 1 (b.) : ; . 

[What Is the status of the] charges filed by APSCME: 

Filed 

State of Hawaii 

City of Los Angles ' 7/81 

State of Wisconsin ^ 2/82 

City of Philadelphia 10/82 

City of Chicago 1/83 
Nassau County 5/83 
Reading, Pa School District 8/83 

Answe r : 

■The following response gives only a general and ratWdojQ 
description of the status of the above referenced c^argos. 
The C9mfnlsslon Is not peV'mltted to publicize charges absent 
the consent of the parties involved. See Section 706(b) and 

- 709(c) of Title VII. 

- Includes 17 charges filed 10/4^2. A request for Informa- 
tion was sent to the respondent who refused to comply. 
The material was obtained eventniaUy by a subpoena. Th* 
Commission has now requested additional Information from 
the city as well as from the charging parties. The dis- 
trict office Is awaiting these submissions. 

- Includes 63 charges fllod 9/83. These charges are In 
deferral to the Pennsylvania Human R Igh ts Comml.^ss I on . 

- Includes l8 Individual charges filed 2/8?. Headquarters 
staff has been requested to follow-up on this Investiga- 
tion and provide any gu Idanfce whl^ch may be needed . 

- Includes 26 Individual charges and is currently In active 
Investigation. A respopse to a r^uest for Information by 
respondent was Inadequate and a subpoena requesting addl- 

t iona 1 1 nf orma tion wasl8sued'^/8l<. 
•- Negotiated settlement on 3/12/81. Charge closed. 

- Piled 8/81*. 'charging party contacted. Headquarters' 
staff has bei^i asked to monitor the status of the 
charge Investigation and to provide any guidance which 
may .be needed. 

- The charge was filed on June 6, 1983 with AF3CMK. The 
Charge number Is 021-83-31^. On April 2, 198'l, the 
New York District JOfflce received a>letter from Winn 
Newman, Attorney {or APSCME, dated March 30, 198^, re- 
questing a Right to Sue Notice. On April 3, 198*^, the 

., New York District Office sent a form letter to the 
Department of Justice for Issuanc.e of the Right to Su«i 
Notice. . . * ' 



17. 



172 

. Question 1 (c): ^« 

■* * ■ ' 

In addition, what ac t Ion d 1 d. the Commlar.lon take- In the ca-,r 

r }f the American Nurses Association In Pittsburgh and\n 

lillno,^^ If no action was taken, why? 



^ s w e r ; • " ^ 

. - Charges filed 8/77. Subpoena was Issu^mI and aubJequ^^nt I v 
enforced in federal d Is t rl c t court and returr>^d to the 
;:ommlsslon for process 1 nn;.. Matter is currently in Investi- 
gation and under review by the legal unit regarding the 
appropriate statistical analysis. 

Includes li| Individual charges. Charging parties requested 

^ v±':^X2yi^'''' '''''' — - 

Ques tion 2 (1): * ' 

We understand that: * 

REOC has the responsibility to adfu.ln 1 n t^.'r Title VII with 
regard to both public and private s*ictor employers and KKOC 
has Issued numtM'ous guidelines and taken positions In numer- 
ous cases Interpreting Title VII which ha\re been ^Iven great 
defecence by thie courts (according to LKOC ' s handbook E 1 1 m 1 - 
natlnR Discr imi nation In Employment ; A Co mpelling National 
Priori ty)] and ' ~ 

EFOC was . d 1 rec te(J and given -luthiorlty to coordinate all 
Federal departments and agencies enforcing equal employment 
laws and policies by Executive Ord^^r 12067; arid 

— £EOC was further directed by that Kxecu t 1 ve 'Orde r to estab- 
lish uniform starKJards, guidelines, and policies defining em- 
ployment discrimination; and 

EEOC rilj?d^n amicus brief In the Gu nthe r case, and 

— The Chairman Is quoted In the February 7 edition of the 
Pallor Labor Reporter as saying the Washington Statl case Is 
"straight Gunjher," and ir the Washington State case were in 
the private sector, the Commission would bo "right out there" 
supporting the women who challenged the salary system; and 

-- The Chairman said In his testimony before thie Manpower and 
Mousing Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations 
on March m of this ^ear that the Washington State case Is "a 
clear case of Intentional sex-based wage d 1 scr Imfha t Ion . " 

Based on this, why does the Chairman believe that KEOC does not" 
have the authority to file a brief In the Washington State case 
§Jiy public sector case? ^ 

Answer ^ 

The Commission does not have au'thorlty to file suit 
against a state, nor could It Intervene in the case , 
without the conservt of the Attorney General.^ See 42 U.S.C. 
§2000e-5( f ) ( 1) . A reading of the f o Uowl'Vig sec t Ion should 
-ih^l^ to clarl'fy the Commission's authority in the area of 
;pu^i4,c sector litigation, Section 706 (f)(1), of Title VII 
states -that : . . 

'If within thirty day« after a charge IsSflled 
with the Commission or within thirty days ^ter 
expiration of any period of reference under 




173 



subsection (c) or (d),'the Commission has been 
unable to secure from the reai 'ent a conciliation 
agreement acceptable to the ..ulsslon, the" 
Commission may bring a civil action against any 
respondent not-a Kove rnment . gove rnmental agency or 
political sub^jivtalon named in the charge . In the c'ase 
of a respondent whl dh Is a government, government al agf^nnv 

or political subdiv ision^ If the Commission has h^en ' 

unable to secure from the respondent a concilia tion — 
agreement, acceptable to the Commission, the CommT^ lon 
shall tak e no further action and shall refer the ca se tn 
the Attorney General who may bring a civil ac t Ion "^^^17^;^ 
suc^ respondent In the appropriate United States district 
court. TYie person or persons aggrieved shall have the rlaht 
to Intervene In a civil action brought b/ the Commission 
, > or the Attorney General In a case Involving a government 

governmental agency, or political subdivision. (Emphasis 
addftd) ' o 

guBStion 2. The Washington State case has been helrj out by 
aome to be a cJLea r cut example of a compa rable worth case, i.e. 
employees were not given equal ''pay for work of Comparable value. 
On the other hand, some argue that thl« case Is traditional sex- 
ba3(»d,wago 1 1 sc r Imlna t Ion. Is KEOC" s view consistent wlth^ that 
expre8S(Hl by the Chairman at the March 14 hearings? ^ 

Does KKUC plan to take an official position on this case ^ 
and, ir r>o, w^a^t has liEOC ' a General Counsel don<? to develop a 
position? ' . ' 

1 Whvn will an ofl'lclal position he ready and how will It he 

\ ufit*d , could fUi atnicuji brief be I*u(*thcomlng? 

\ Anawe r : 

The orClce of General Counsel currently, ly reviewing; 
the Washington State case and whfin that review is com- 
.p'lete will make a determination on whether to recommend 
y ^ that the. Commission participate In the case as ^J:Cus_ 

f^'m' curiae*. (Since the caae Is against a public employer, 

i ^ ♦ the Commission could not have filed suit agalns t' "the 

state In the first Instance, nor could It have Int^vened 
■U' In the case. See U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l) (Attorney 

J 'General shall litigate T4tle VII claims against .-^tate 

-and Ipcal governments-).) 

■> As a rule, the Office of General Counsel does not make? a 

final decision on whether to participate in a case an 
amicus until It has reviewed full record and transcript 

* In the case. Review of the transcript Is particularly 

Important In f act- Intens 1 ve" cases such as the WashJ.ngton_ 
State case. The transcrl^pt of the Washlngt on_jYaje case~~ 
has not yet been i* 1 led with the cou rt . The court has , 
however, established a tentative briefing scheciule 
requiring the appellant (the state) to file Its brief 60 
days after transcript Is filed. The Office of General 

Counsel win make a decision some time before this deadline 
on whether to recommend ami c us pa rt;lc ipAt Ion. 

guea tlon 3 » 

In 1979, the EEOC commissioned the National Academy of Sciences 
to determine whether nonblased Jdb evaluation measures exlot or 
can be developed. Why, after two years of study, was the NAS 
#tudy insufficient and how , long will this EEOC study take? Also, 
why do you expecl this current study to result in anything 
different? 



ERIC 



35-003 O ^ 84 - 12 



17/ 



174 



Answer 

The NAS study was not Insufficient, It was, however. Incon- 
clusive because of the undeveloped nature of the technology 
Involved ^ i n Job e valuat Ions . 

. * The EEOC work group, using actual case files, will be pre- 
*' sentlng options papers tO' the Commission on the various 
Issues Involved In comparable worth , which are raised by 
these case files. The group will not aga In s tudy the Issues . . 
studied In the Jt4^ report. However, very real questions In- 
volving Job evaluation may- be raised by the files. 

For exam^ile, the National Academy of Science study, "Women, 
Work and Wages: Equal Pay for Jobs of Equal Value" questioned 
the usefulness of Job evaluation pians to establish comparable 
worth: ^ . 

[S]evcra,l aspects of the methods generally used In such 
plans raise questions about their ability to establish com- 
. parable worth, Plrst, Job evaluation plans typically ensure 
rough conformity between the measured worth of Jobs and actual 
wages by allowing actual wages to <ietermlne the weights of Job 
factors used In the plans. Insofar as differentials associated 
with sex, race, or ethnicity are Incorporated In actual wages, 
this procedure will act to perpetuate tljem. Statistical tech- 
nlquea exist that may be able to generate Job worth scores from 
which components of wages assoc la ted w I th sex, race, or ethni- 
city ha\;^been at least partly removed; they should be further 
deve lope 



^^J ^ b ee 



Second, many firms use different Job evaluation plans for 
different types of Jobs. Since In most firms women and min- 
ority men are concentrated In Jobs with substantially differ- 
ent tasks 'from those of Jobs held by nonmlnorlty men, a pl^^n 
that covers all Jobs would be necessary In order to compare 
wages of women, minority men, and nonmlnorlty men. The selec- 
tion of compensable factors arid their weights In such a plan 
may be quite difficult, however, bocause factors appropriate 
for one type-of Job are not necessarily approprl^ate for all 
other types. NeVi? r the less > experiments with firm-wide plans ^ 
•might be useful In making explicit the relative weights of 
compensable factors, espec la 1 1/ s Inoe they are already used 
by some firms. 

Finally, It must be reoognl/.ed that there are no definitive 
tests of the "fairness" of the choice of compensabie faotqrJi 
and the relative w^-lghts generating a wa>^e structure that Is 
deemed equltat>le depends on achieving a consensus about- fac- 
tors and their weights among employers and employees. 

The Commission If^ attempting to address this complicated arr-a on 
a case by case basis. It Is not possible to project If and^ 
when the Commission will be able to resolve the questions 
raised by the National Academy of Science study. 

Quest ion 3.1: It Is my und^^rsUuidlng that In 19HI the * 
General Counsel Tiled ^6 Title VII, concurrent Title VII-EPA, 
and solely EPA cases> In 1982, this number dropped to 31, and 
In li^B3 to 28. It would certainly appear, baseirj upon this data, * 
ttiat the Interest of the MOQC or the Office of (Jeni-ral Coinsel 
was not as enthusiastic a.s It should L^JlVj, f 1 11 ng thes*' r;ises 
since I am (^onvLnced that the :ujbstant laifJrop In the numb*,'r is 
not because sex-based wage dlscrlmWvitlon Is, not as gr(*at a pro- 
blem- talay as It was a few -years ;igo. 

[a] Can you tell me wtiy iHX: has file. J fewf-r c^unes In 19^3 
than In 19bl, why therv was a dr^/p of almost p)ercentV 



} 



\ 



ERIC 



17d 



i 



1T5 



Answer: 

^ p ^ ^ 

Over the last ffw y^'ars Uu; Comaisslon haa ♦•xperleno-Hj a ^. ' ' 

decline In tiaseiJ rile<i under all three statutes t;hat U.-.m 
erl^•()r(;^^s iTltlo VII ol' the CIvJirRlj^tUs Act 'fl' 1%^, the 
Vx\ml Pao^ Act, iind tlu> Age Discrimination In FinployiTvept Act}, 
not Just a decline In aex-bastMi wa^e^dlscMjaifVHtlon ca3t?&.' \ * 
ITie decline In wage dlscrlminatlon ca3e» !s^a rrvitter of 
particular Haoncem to the Conral^blortv 'the (ieneral Counsel. %■ 
This decline Is deflaite^ly not tiie' ti^ >ihy^ack of Lnterf?st In 
; such cases on. the- j)iirt or thTia'DOJ. "Rather, It Is prlinarlly 
the result of^i lack or ^fflctent numbers of fully InVestl- 
fi^tfd cases worttiy of Corrmlssloh Iltlgatlor^^ which In U^m 
'Is coe n-sult^of Die Rapid Charge Processlng^System . « 
., lastltuted by the ComUsslort In 1979. TVil-^ system g^ve' * 
prfrorfburtt eijifj^iinls to rapidly closing changes of 

dl8ci^mAjT<itU?n thr<>>ugh neKf)^lattNl settl^nt without . , 

due reganl*t()^he Iltlga^Jpon f)otcntlaI of the char|?e, ^ <^ ^ ^ - 
jt^U^j ccxnpIfxltJy or' the ctiarye b^ tl'.e exigencies 'o(^ the 
Investigation. • * ' 

•Wijlle trie adoption In 1979 of ttioj^fipl'd chiarige process 
fulfilled .-m Institution^ need. tONi^lntcln a manageable 
workhMd Inventory, the c^^nslder^bjr emphasis on this 
prwceus' lyid h\ adV.-ree 'effect on the Cc^lssl-^n's a"bli;ty 
to addr^rss tht» inerAts of enij>Ioy^ntI discrimination claims. 
'II le rapUl criargf prx^cess was ebpeclrflW, I'nrlmical .to ^ 
biurtl Pa^ Act aiiJ Title VII sox-based Wagt* dlscr<iminatlon * ^ 
llj.l^tlon. ^uch t'ruses usually necessitate- on-site, 
tl^'tal le<l Uivestlgatl(Xis- of Job i;ontent and'worklng 
conditions. iVie Haplcf (:iiarTge'Pr<')cesslng Systj^^m'a ' ♦ 
etR(jluiSl.> oti cliar^^ processing \x,\i\ brought. at>out a 
t^rtlctilarly 3ever»* decline In trie quall'ty and quajitlty ' ■ 
of Invftj^tlgatlons un^er the 'bjual H^v/ ActJfiPA). 
■Under ^^-lat Act a ^mjtf^s n(St a necessary prc'llcate to\ 
an lnvestlg?itl«jrji ^|J P|^ 3^non lias .iuthorlty to 

Investigate wag»' M.s JB|Wnat lrjrw:'n Itr^ own* 1 n 1 1 ! 'it I ve . '["he 
De^)artment of I^bor iwfch tta 1 KP^ auth<)rlty before IT/ 9) • 
directed murh of Its enfor^^emimt activity under ^hc VSh 
to f^lar.s waK.e d tsf>a r 1 1 1 >or t«'n dlsclf^rjori as a by-produrt of 
Ir.vrSL Igat Ions to()btaln '^omptlanc^' wjrh f-hf^" ml nlmum waK/^ 'ind 
overtime provisions of- th^ P^lr Labor '?tanda[*ds A'", t, Howevf«r, 
because of the Rapid *:har;gf* Proresr. Uig 'Jy^tem and budgotary "or 
stra.lnts Mirtltlhg on-slti? InveVitlg^t'lon:; , KK(JC'r» r'rif'orcnment 
•<^rfj;)rt3 ^ave primarily bee'n jlmlted'to '*[iMrg"V. flUvi undz-r jNie 
Kqua I Pay A'^t. As n,otve(i j ri oiir annual reptjrts,, .'^X !»-wer KPA 
':hargea w^re r'e!:elved by thti f-'KOC during KYr-Hi^ than FY-8i. Al: 
of the nymber rf'celvod, lOXlnorc wo re. reso l vod (closed) during 
thf ^dmlnis trat I ve pr^ticeos wVilch \n turn retlucf^n the number of 
oa^es recommended to headquarters for litigation. 

To address tfi^^i.e problems,- the C(^)mmlsslon oti December U 
rjb3 urian l{nou;'> ly pa-.'rard a resolution directing subs tan t Pal modi- 
fications In the Rapid Change Processing System aimed at making 
tfie' system mor*' responsive to KEU(J ' s Uiw enf or(^f^m^?nt responsi- 
bilities. We expect thflft thf?:;e changer, will lead ,t t 1 mpro.vemen t s 
In both tbe «piantlty a«(l (jua-JH-y of tlie Commission'^ litigation ■ 
W/tige discrimination cases.' ' ■ . , . < 

> * III part I cu lar , tfie Oe(jetr)ber U resoiutloh recognl/.es t.tip impor- 
tance of on-s I te . I rivpst Igatl ons I n wage d Is/^r Im I na 1 1 on (N'is«'s and 
directs that more thorough or^-slte I hvfv; tl gatlonc 'be .conducted In 
virtual Ijf ai^l such cases. Also, the Of^'fTce of Oeneral Counsel has 
proposed arid the Commlsslbn hfft adopted a Natilonal Lltfgatlpn Pl,an 
that Is Interuled to guldV* the Commlsr>iion ' s f I e Id j^en f or<:emen't offli- 
cials ?bnd attorrf^ys In th** sMr'Ctlon of cases that the ('ommlsslon 
believes to*>)Q of*hl|^h priority, for KROC's 1 1 1 Igatjl^on ■ prav:ram , such 



as wage ai3crim wi/it I'vn t-aHrfi. Th^atf Initiatives will strrngthon 
'greatly the Cominl on I on ' « litigation program arul thereby also en- 
hance 'the Commission's en'orts to redness wage (ilscrlmlnatlon. 

The Commission and the Office of Ger^eral Counsel consider 
*wagti discrimination to be an esptfclaUy Important Issue and will 
''continue to enforce vigorously Title VI I and the Equa^ ^ay Act; In 
ocder to eradicate w-age dlsorlmlnatlon in. any form. Through Its 
participation In landmark cases suc*h as County o f Washi ngton y . 
tiunther ^'y2 U.S. 161 (1981), and lUE v. W estinghouse Elect ric 

• Corp., 631 P.2d|l09'i (3d Cir. i9boi; c'e r t . ^d^l ^.d 4 UTT.~937 " 
^^fT^Bll-, the Comillsslon ban eantrlbnted slgn| f Icant^ly to -t^he^ 

..'^cjj^e^lopment of 4^\^orabie legal prlnclf^Tes nec^ssa ry" tol I tlga te 

discrimination claims In the future. The Qomml9wft>n and the 

• Office of General Counsel remain fully committed to the Investl- 
gatliDn afid litigation, on a priority basis, of cases alleging 
Intentional wage or salary disc r 1ml nat Ion , In violation of Title . 
VII /infl/or the Kqual Pay Act» Including cases Involving Issues 

• I Ike \ho3e' addressed In the Ounther and Westinghouse cases, 
wbetrter based on sex, race, color', religion or national origin. 

• iVie ^BOC (iirrently Ivis Rl wc^qe fU scriminat ion raaea penrUnn 

in liti^^<tti(Xi (cases ^vurrl^r Title VII nUeqino waqe disrrimimtion 
on the ^«si3 rSf aexj Bex-baae<l \v«qe discrinxination cases filed 
(X)ncnirrently iinfler Title VII an^l the Rqual Act; and cases filed 
under the' K/pial Pay Act).* In addition, in calendar year 19B4 to 
date, yUe (^Tnnisslon has ap^^roved for filinq five Rqual r^y Arrt 
cases; olqhP TxpJrtl Pay/Title Vll^ cases; an<l cne Title VII aex 
diHrrimirvat. iof^ rase invnlvirv] waqe (Uscriminatim. These f vises ■ 

• >it)ier have tt^^n filel or wilM be filefl in Hie nrvar future. 



Oif ^ ijT^O . 1 J2>] : 7-1 1 ia Hso rry undorstarKlinq that in 1901 
■tfarnr)re tWi tv^r-thif-rte nf tlw? -cases Were resolve^l, irf l^ft? le 
t^an ''lO percent wer^ refK^lve*!, ami in 1983 loss th^m 25*V<^rcenf. 

What is causing t^iis trend? 

Why were F>c> rnany fe^^er oases, crj a percent aqe Kisih and 
in absolute n>ini:>ers, resoWeil in 1983 than in 1981? 

Answer : 



The li^irjF^tion statl^tif?* to vAiir-h yrxj refer are 
tliose on the attache^\ chart (Attacliment A) ^Mtit^ferl, "Title VII 
Waqe Discr ijninat ion/Hin-ial Pay Act Cases Filer! ??in(>? Jamvary, 1981," 
vAuch the Office of General CSounsel subfnitte*'! on NVarch 12, 1984 to 
tlve Subccmittee cn Manpower and Housiry7 of the ffcxise Goverment 
f)peratioris Otrmittee. The percentaqep of rases resolve^l that yrxi 
cite, iKWever, reflect, a inisi^iterpretation of the f^rc^i 12 chart. 

The chart shcvm tlie ntnJ^r of cases &ile<^l in calerwiar years 
1981, 1982 and 1983 vdithln each of the folhwinq cateqories: (I) 
cases under Title Vll alleqlnq waqe discrimination on the Wasls 
of sex; (2) sex-lSase<l wnqe rli scriminat ion cases filed concurrent-' 
ly unt^er Title VII and the Rc:j\ial Pc^y Act; and {i) cases filed 
irnder the Equal Pay Act.. Ihder each year's ooUnm, the. chart, 
then s)xws the current status (as of March 12, 1984) of those 
ceases file^J in the year^4**^^i^^^ » is* ^cw many of the 

cases filed In that year alSl^ ave 'been resolved from that year 
to the present. Thue,* for exarrple, the chart phtvs th^t of tJhe 
4^ f^ases filed In calendAr^ year 1901, 33 wer^ resolved l3etv<n<^Q 
1981 antl the present, vshile 13 are cjujjr^ntly pending in litiqn- 
tion. Similariy, of the 27 cafTea filerl in 1983, 5 hav^^ been 
rescilv^l to date, v^lle 22 are still in litiqation. 

The fifjures (^o not reflect any trend in case resolutions; 
rather, tliey result simply frcm the fact that a hi<*ier Dpraent- 
aqe rtf the'c7\8ed filed in^ earlier ^#ar9 will have been ^tiqated 
a^^^Vresolved by this time than oases filed nore recently . 



177 



1h\e total nuinlx'f ui' c'^V'.s In t.nr t.hrv?'- (^it..-^)[-v»^ij nottMi 
abov<i^(Title Vlb st?X/'wa^ft illarrliulnatlon, i';f'A ; concurrent Tit hj. 
VII/KPA) that werv pesoV^ eac^l year lt5 as follows: 

Year "^""^ l!^^^.. j W 

^ Cases Resolved 

We vio not havce a total l"<ir T^Hl N><.:auvnf> the OlTl-cp of Geru-raL 
. C(xiiisel lilt) 4it)^liavo I ta. SyutL^n .00 ciiae t.r'icklng system In 
operation at that t.Une. 

!!^yit^I.9.P..i'.^, LpA' ^^'^ ^'^^^ orrice o!" th*' CJf.TKM-aL CfXirUiel ^viv»» 
U'lffh! lent vtrsouvcfti'! * 

'In the' .Starr at the i;airx' leve> UMny a:j In V)HV! 
IV not, how irvmy fewer {x>sU.lon.s art* thf^rv now? 

* '^^^erj^ 

'll^ie (X'rice of wtTUM*;!! (*oiinsel had t^ip following, rnjml)ery ol' 
attorneys in the I'leKl lethal iix^;.i3 from J-'Y *H0 to I'^Y '83: 

I-Y 'yo"' - • , • 

Fi "'81 - ?68 ■ • < ■ 

In adtlltltin, therx* ar^ currently 4b* attorneys In headquarters Office 
of Oerier^al C^)UnseU 

(• 

We lx?lleve that the Carmlsslon caji and should be litigating 
nxn^ cases by usliig existing rvsowrces and existing l^^l stalT 
more effectively and efficiently. 'i7ie diminution In case filings 
over the last few years has not been due either to a lack of 
resources, or to scxne sort of official unwUlljigness to litigate 
more cases or particular types of cases despite the availability 
of resources. Rather, as note(l- previous ly , th<^ decline In cases 
Is a direct result of the Rapid Qiarge Processing SystorfLT which 
the Ccnmlsslon now has substantially modi {'led. v\ 



The C(iTTnl3slon will continue to try to increase the 
Tjuirbors of good (idallty cacses that It files. If In the future 
the pool of cases aval lable^fox* Uti^tlort inci^ases to" the 
point that additional attorneys are ne^ded,' :^he Conmlssloa'wl 11 
reallocate legal staTf as necessary Or wfl^ trike steps to obtain 
an Inrrease In legal staff. ■ . \ ' . 

Ouegtion 3. 1 [d] ; H;^ have the <\-vqes \>r^n ref5<yivei,J".\„ I 
w:>uld apfjreciate it if yrxj u^xiM prf>vide this stiir^tf^nf ^ ee with 
full infom^tion cn tJus. as well as w^iere cA.qps "wf-Sr^ f i IfvU 

Anawer -. 

The att'Sd\e<l list that the office of ''ener-^l <Vnin5^el 
' provide*! t-O O^e Hulxxjnnittee on f^nprr^r -^ivl Ho^minn 
onr^rc*^ 12, 1904 (Attachment lives the -fol Irwi nq 
infom^tion on Title* VH wage rliscr ijninat.i(xi/F:}r^iuTl Pay 
Ax^t cases fyed \iy the F:^)pC since -Tanuary, 1981: (1) <^ 
cnlitnn.l: the namp of the deferKtant, tlie (,dvil action 
rumfjer 'assf«inetl \iy the onurt, t>v» district rtMirt ^ere ^. 
f \he case was. filed, arvl tlie type of resolution, if applicable, 
aryl dat^ of f^soluticjnr (2) colurtr 2? tlie date t^\e case 
was filed in court., the statntetsV iinder v^iich it was 
filed, i.e.. TRle VII, Title VII/KPA, or nPA; and (3) 
cx^limn 3: the Uislfi or bases of diocriminatiDn aUeqe<i in 
the case, and iho issueCs). 

L 



178 



Ques t Ion . , 

In light or the curr'Mit comp-iV-ir) I f worM.h rori t rovr rs.y , 
tht* many W'gal arui ;oKl3l:itlvo initiative:; trirou^-hou t 
the country, an^i coru'i ! derl ng tfu^ mania t^ fM* Mi^ KKOC , 
shoulihi't th<^ KK().: be actively -ieterml filnK th«? HpprN>~ 
prlato ro U? (If any) the Kf^deral ^ov*' r\\sv.ri\\. nUo^il \ 
take !n establish I MK tf;ulviaru''- !' )r ^let e t'rnt u 1 riK wht-tiirr- 
Job evalviatlon systems comply WrU-h li I ncr I m I tiaM on laws'. 

Hasn'r i-.KO':'f; onVy :>u^J^:-.» ant * v<- ^cM.nn.s !.<•' n- » I m t ► -■«! i.,, 
rf^-vlfwlriK .'u.IS-'.ai 1<.m: l 3 I ' -n."' t >U-l'-rv\ r.*- \ i' le^.a: pro- 
(?eiienti5 hA"Ve beoc. iwjt that * ou l d b*» aifpUe'l to oiht^r 
cases ■; 

[ f no. Wyi.it oLher- 5 I f-if. 1 :* I v^fint i>:t1oiK; 'mv*- be^fn tak'.v'iV * 
ir yes: How -jo yo a ffu-iMic I W.' l.ht;f;t» :!n'.<t.<A] {.'(Tur't.^. ov^t' 
the riv» /nira wU!i KKOC':; ptM3« ; t>'»>i ro:j{»()fK; 1 bl ". 1 1 1 e,s 

to leflru' wa^r ! i .-. <: r I m na M on wh"' eh a«'<-<>r«n n/, 'o f^.KOC's ^ 
temporary ^.u 1 I'M I tu? :v I tic I !«■:•. 'I' 1 1 1 e VII, (luntUer-ty pe 
(I.e. <:omparable worth ^ oas<^r '. 

Answer 

As I navp t.e:;. r. U' I p^i on ApiM 1 , 1 *)HM , f do *1Vo t [)crcelve 

^ as the ro!'- oi' a l ederal .i>^^»noy to «'reate ilaw. Our 
ro : 0 Is to d<)rnl r J " er and Ir.t ►^n^Tf^t t^ie law ae It stands. 
:v»vei<)plntJ5 ^KuUJanoi- r<^jj| le tt- r>n ! n ! rm; whether Job evaluation 
:;y:jte'*r.s "rmp'.y w 1 1 ,^1. 1 1's c r 1 m I na ! Ion laws may hi tnapproprl- 
.iVn ani v.-ry dim cult Vov theKhOC, \ 

■■u r ' r.<' r , KKUf* ha." not ,Iunt r'wlewed Judli-lal dfM:lsloris. We 
also )\:\vn fl^vnlop'-'l a comfMlaru.e ttianual sectlony^i waj^e' dls- 
crlml na t U)ri whl cyi helps our field staff to understand 
the v\f 1 ui'. ' ; s ifs involved and provides ^ul(lan'M\ on • 
Inve.st I t IftK i^a^f* rhatv>er.. We acMv<;ly soughtvaud 
tin.nucctjss lu 1 ly atternp^ed to d*»velo[) for i 1 t l^,a t lorV a 
■iiarg*^ Involv^n?; dissimilar jt^bs where there was t^v^ldence 
'>f Intentional wagf? d 1 ser 1 ml na 1 1 oa. ^ W> have IdtHit levied 
anothor saeh ch.iry;e an(i a r'^ .Awa 1 1 in^ rec^,lpt nf the vl b.- 
from tf^o The task ^;roup has^ viewed in exce^^s of 

1 liHH muartt^rs files, arui Is preparing Its case 
reiu^n.rnenda tlono for the Comin 1 ss 1 t)[i ' s consideration. 

Question b I '- 
ll 1 3 ny understanding that ther'> aee rurr^nitly ?hh pend- 
ing wage discrimination charges btd'orf^ the liKOC , those 
cas^s In wh*r>i the Comml ss lont^s have not 7<'t approved 
administrative findings and recommendatl(Mis and that some 
of these date back untt 1/197^. Is that eornectV 

^ou mean to tell me that while you have boen^a tudy I ng this 
issue, assigning memoranda, and creating task forces, there 
are charges sitting In your files? There are victims 

,.Df wagf^ dlscrlmlrlation dating bact to I') 7 'J who have their 
complaints unresolved, people who have had to wait a decade 
for your agency to act? 




179 



When <.\o you lra«ru.l to btfgln to net like a concerne<i enforce- 
ment agency? ^ 

* ■ - I 

An swer J 

YoLi are correct In your understanding that theroLt-re 266 wage 
■discrimination cliarKes ' awa 1 1 Ing a. Commission decision and that 
some of* thrsc cliarges ( roui\ to be f?xaot) were flh.'d In CI seal 
year 197^. As or April 30, l^bH , the Commission had 277 wage 
discrimination cha rges at headquarters . 

I take l.ssue with the Implication that the Commission has not 
acted "like a ooniernrd enf'orcement agency." The Commission's 
r^'sponslbl lUlPS In the employment discrimination area cover 
many other Issues In addition to wage lU^c r Im I nat Ion . In fact, 
In Ky 83, charges were, riled with the Commission covering 23 
gf-nrral Issues. I'urther, the Commission rec^l ves^approx 1 - 
mately 10,000 wage x:harges ^annua 1 ly . Most of thes*,' are 
(julrkly processed. The cases which havfj\iot movnd are those 
whlrh appear not to Tall with In the Gunbhe r Tramework or the 
f-xl'ntlng law on wage .discrimination. 
Wuest jon 6 : * 

In your irstlmony In , yon r.ald with rrgar 1 to onr 

concerns .ibout sy.;tf-mlV sex-ba;'.*'cl y^a>re discrimination in 
nhe Ke<lerfi I, Kovfrnrnent that, and I *inot-;, "This Is an area 
w^H-r^* I thrnk t^ir'P}* has been some U-tdown or We have not. 
gotten the rwr<:^*('ul (*ommltment that ther»* should have hr»»Hi. 
But you havf- rny commitment that we wlil pursue v»-ry vlgor- 
t)»]nly the Iriec^ultlos ^ui *llHcr Iml nat l^n In t.he i'edr- ra I - wor^^ 
force." 

What have you done since, that ttmeV 

What Is your pt)sltlon on serrtlon i oV fi.K. bO^)? and on the 
Ko<leral Pay IvjuUy Act of 19^4-,' 

Answer 

Klrst oT all, the statemfint .^reC^ r^'ncetJ above was made In 
response to a questlAr^ pose<l by Representative Schrt)eder. 
The statement was not a part of* my '"testimony" as yv)u Indl- 
c;ite. In response to the To I lowing questions f*rom Represen- 
taj: I ve Sch roeder , 1 responded , as f*o 1 lows ; 



I8j. 



180/ > 



aiilhnrP../ t.«> IwoK at. i- .-mpa rah i wort W** (^-It. H -IM arul 

N 

InOK ir l;'.:u]e bo tii' 1 rv tfU' private arid ^puh 1 1 <: 

r>r ! r. ' .U'll riv: th^^ iM'de'rai work force?. Thf' pi>lnt 
I!. at I w i:-. riaklri/^ \\\ Mial '.ylLh ri>fi[)f>(:t t;o pay ^"julVy 
p r\.ir. "I';:: . rviri oiir forri^j^la *. rit« have not recflvfd many 
I II I'''.' itM*a I .Jovcrnincnt . . . 

vu**:; 1 1 i^n I ror': rt'.'ifriUa t. ' Vf? jc[irutMl»'t'- ^ 

v 

. . . I :! nd It :.o au o'.y, a |»r.ohlL*ni a;; It. ! r. 

* I rl vat.i.' iwcror. "><• ^ nop*- wo r,in /,ct. .i 
'■ >n.f:! ' :-i»-rit f r«.)ni yoM to n«»lfi u:; ai«Jr<»ii.'> that 1 r.^i'i*.'.* 
1 ^ \ .\\\/. M. ■ I a 1 way a :» 1 o »' to ha vt- your « jwri houii^' 
: r; ..[')"[• t.r'i nr'* yc>u ^";o ovit and pr»>a(:h to th<' prlvat»' 
•..'.:»..[■, "v) I h.opv* 1 can //'t you on bo.ard an^ 
.■ V. iri^, tt t hf l.ita wWh ui'. ;■.<> w*' f:an m<.>v».' on 
^:.at. 'n th»* i-'f-dt-ral dov^'^n:nt'rlt be for'.: Imti/. . 



V '-i h-iv .viy foturnl t-rnnriJ. th.a^ w»- will h'V.^f^ > ^ 
:r.'. ■.; an arc-a wher*- [ ttilriK that th'Mv- haG b'^Ti M>rru> , 
iftJown vu* wf have not. /.ottcri th" t'orc'Tul Coriirn 1 tnif -nl 
M.at vh'TM' :UiouM hav^ bnfn. f^ut you fiaV" iny <:"nrn 1 tnu^t t 
M.af^ Wf wlli piir.'iuf ytM*y v I k^J ^ y t,h<' In»!qultl"8 and 
d I .; : r In !. n-i r I on dn th.(* :'*('dcra'i work t'orco," 

Annwpr ( rnn ' r. ) : What Mav»' wt.* doti»* :ilnrr that tlirwV 

W*^ hav»' rr.oved I\>rward In ttils ar'*a on at i»»a:;t Toui' 
front.-.: 

- We havn ruin[.:-ttMl ;i draft of rr K'i 1 a 1 1 oils for proo^'ss- 
WiK .'omplalntn filed by f.>deral .'niploye.*^ In ra^i.'ii 
allP^ln/ i-.qaal F'av violations. Th.-.'w. ro/.ulatlon. will 
ho ir.V.uM f..r ..'orumrnt th^ fcM.-ral a/,rnolrf; and 
tho r,ut)M". W»« antlrlpat(. flnaM/.m^. tt.o rr>r.u 1 aM on:; a;; 

;;,,^;rt..r t.h. ...nnu>nt period ar.-po.s. I b I . . I'uh l .at on ot 
»h^'W' r-j/.r.atlon'i will undoubt'>dLy -aa.sf a conn I d*^ rab 
l\,..r-ajw> ir. tho f ndera UKqua L Vay Art activity du^ to 
lr,cr.>aLU'd awan.nOas of thr law by federal tMnploy.fon . 

W»» have ln.:nMGed the federal Elector compliance wUh 
P.nortuv. ind plannlt.^ rcpi 1 r--ment.-; from '/^a, In t ^, 

<)SJ l^ throuKM the romp Let lor. of all program f-inctits 

r-tPiulr'>d f<^r thr' {)rop*'r I mp leitientat Ion and ovcrak^nt o( 
t ho federal affirmative action proKrams. 

Th.* onalt.- rrvL.'Wf; of aK^>ncy affirmative Action p ro>..rain.<. 
,.omm..n<-d In I'^H^-have stlmulKted a Kreat d.>al ot ''^'-t-^^lty 
in the wholp area of affirmative ^*<^tlon for women and minor- 
Itler. in the (*ederal community. ^ _ 



ERIC 



16.} 



181 



EKO Managem(?nt Directive 707 A Ks3«u'cl In Sept^Mabf^r 19»3, 
outlines the annual requirements for reporting agency work- 
force profiles. This directive Includes criteria for. de- • 
tectlng occupa>4^"nal segregation so that the *agency might , 
begin to fcyyrf^on resolving such problems. ^ 

The above-mentioned management dlr^jctlve f'xpllcltly states, 
for the first time, that the promot lan-f rom-w Ithln of women 
and minorities Is equally as Important as hiring women and 
minorities. KEO-MD-707A requires agencies to plan how they 
will move women and minorities upward through the agency 
and to report, separately from external hiring, any such 
Inte rna I movement made Int he priory ear. 



^09?- Is set forth^ 
the Committee. To 
of H.K. 509? 



I»jy position on Section 3 of H.R. 
In my April ^th testimony before 

summarize, I believe that the langua,ge of H.K. 509? Is 
ambiguous. . It also Imposes an unwarcanted burden on 
this ^'Qmmls3lor\ to compile Information whi«ih Is not 
for the ('omml SS4 on to carry out its pr(fsent 

Additionally, the p rov l s Ions would be 
and wpuld divert o^j^' staff ^from tTie 



requ I r<;d 
respons I b 1 1 1 t.les . 
extremely costly 



enforcement funetlon. 

jrovMflffg you w 1 1 h*add 1 1 lona 1 



W'* will l>e [ 

regarding the projected costs of 
the t?nd c>r this month (May l^Sk) 



I nfprmatlon 
r:ompl larjce by 



Question Ih 



-Hr. Thomas, on March ?? , 199^, I sent yovf a letter request Irrg 
Jipeclflc Information on iiex-hastJd w-'ig(? dlscrlminntlon ch?irg^'S 
aril (Mses Ih the KFvOC . My staff way Informed on March ?b that 
the Informath^n was not readily a vai I rih 1 . 1 would like to 
;iubml~t the MarelT ?? let'ter for th*!» reconl. Do you have any 
of the inr'>rmat Ion today? When can you complete this request 
and why was the material no^ readily available? " 



Answer^ ^ 

The (jues t Ions -^presented In your March ^<'nd letter and. our 
' responses to each question are note<l below; , 

1. I Aer\ttfy the number and type of wage/d lac r I ml na t Ion 
allegations currently pending at^KKOC with regard to: 



.■ a) the Kqual Pay Act ; 

b) Ounther 

c) Comparable Worth 



\ 



Equal Pay ♦ 
EP/ T. VII Cone. 



FY 83 
1 ,003 



Receipts 

Ijt Qtr. 

195 



8a 



2nd yCr. 8*4 
517 



Clo-su res 



Kqual Pay 

KP/ T. Vll^Conct^ 1 ,M93 



una va liable ■ v 



We routinely maintain Information with' regard to the number oC 
charges alleging wa|e discrimination under the Equal Pay Act. 



ERIC 



lS,j 



182 



However, as I have itt^iled Ir] my. March l^-lli testimony before 
this Comml t^Jtee , the Commission does not separate its wage 
discrimination claims by Issue (whether the charge- alleges a 
disparate treatment Issue, such as the disparate treatment l^sue 
preaented In Qunthe r , as distinguished from a "comparable 
worth" issae). Consequently, we do not have Information 
categorized as you have requested. . * 

2. Identify the filing dates of ail p.endlng wage discrimi- 
nation charges, ^ 

A. The Commission carries a pending workload of about 
30,000 charges. The ratio of wage Issue charges' 
to the Inver'.tory haai been determined to be about 1 In 
7 or approximately ^,300 pending wager d 19c r Imlna t Ion 
charges. We do not have any documentation and the 
computer Is not set' up to provide a listing of the 
filing dates for the ^^,300 pending wage charges. How- 
ever, we can tell you that with limited exceptions, 
iflfost of the charges filed {93%) are resolved within a 300 
. day t Ime rr ame. The ave rage process Ing time for an equa 1 
pay charge has been Identified as approximately 217 days. 

• « 3. Where [were] the charges filed? 

A. The Commission receives Charges at each of Its ^8 
district and a r.^ oTflces. 

^4 . [State] whether tne charges were filed by individuals, 
'; un 1 ohs o r commls 9 1 one rs , " • ; i 

A. 'The Commission does not^ maintain Information )/n the 
manner the Information Is requested. In order to 
provide the Informat^lon as to the Identification 
of the charging party, the Commission's Office of 
Program Operations would have to establish a 
computer format which would Identify this Information. 
We do not anticipate establishing such a program since 
the Commission does not require stich a program to carry 
out Its statutory duties. Further, If the above Information 
has to be developed manually to respond to this Inquiry, 
we would estimate that the effort would require, at a 
minimum, the time of Equal Oppor_t;unlty Specialists (1 
per office) for apfcrox|.mate ly eight work days, A 
conservative estln/ate of thf* costs ln-terms*of salary 
(based on a G$~li,' step 3 leveU-would He $^40,000, 
b> Hpw many of the allegations are belnp; Investigated by 
headquarters or, the reglpnal offices? 

Answer ; 

The Commlaslon has 277 charges lui.ler review at headquarters, 
yie have appn* x Ima te ly ^,100 wage <1 1 sc r Imlnatl on claims- 
^ pending In the (MstrlCt and area offices. 

6. [identify the J numbi?r of wage dl3cr Imlnatlon claims whlQ 
are charges Involving; w-^iK*' d Isc r Imlna 1 1 <jn which the '< 
^Commission 1.^ currently attf»mptlng to conciliate. 

*■ • 

Answer : ° ^ . , ■ 

The Commission does not maintain Its charg^ Information 
In this mannel*.: In order to, obtain a status report foP ^ 
each chary;e to det'ermlne whether* the, charge Is* In coqC 1 1 lat'ton , 
we would have to check '^.aoh'^lle manually, *S 



4 



I8u 



ERIC 



183 



7. [ Identify the] number of charges reTerred to the Justice 
Department forclvllactlon. 



Answer : 

The Conunlss Ion ' 3 computers are not prog^mmed 't^^ provide 
this Information as to the number of charges referred to 
the Justice Department. We will make a special request 
that . this .Information be compiled as soon aa possible., " 
However, since the compu.ter staff is Involved In ^ jj 
an extensive reprogrammlng effort, we therefore d6 not 
anticipate a reply until around June 1. 

[Identify] any other d Ispups 1 1 Ion of the' chapgesT^. 

Answer : ^ v 

Current Information Is not available this time, * ^, 
However, we can provld^ Information with regard to ^^he • 
number of i/rlsuccesaf ul conciliations by fiscal year. 
For example. In FY 83, there wera 2,L62 unsuccessful 
conciliations ( 11^1 - EPA; If75--Tltle VXI and Title 
VII/KPA, arid ?73 - Age)^ •>''■ .• 

"* nt 

[ Identify the] number of wage discrimination charges 
riled and types of charges filed since 197^. 



Answer 



KY 



\ 



1983 
198? 
1981 
19 HO 

1979 
1978 
1977 
1976 
1975 



Total 0 or 
Wa£^_phar^es 

IBptJl^/ 

12,809 
12,367 
^ 8,8tJl 
* 8,1?9 
13,787 
16,051 ■ 
1 1 ,658 



Total # of 
Wages/Se^ 



4 

6;357« 
6,278« 
3,35^1 

5 ,,608 
6,^0 

5,229 



» Plgnre Includes charges fUed undpr the^Kqual ^Pay Act. 
Source: IvEpC Annual Reports 

Although We can 'Identify the number of chaf-ges filed by^ 
statute, we do not ha^^e .any further breakdown of -"type" of 
charges filed. 



2. 



Status and disposition of aU charges at the j^nd.of the^ ' ' 
year Ir^whlcF^ Wiey. w^re filed. ^ „ ' ~ ' 

Answer ^ 0 ^ p. 

We do not maintal^j tfve Info rmat Ion In the manrter requested. 
Although charge resolution Information Is maintained by 
flstal year, • t^ie statistics may.Te/le.t charges filed In' 
an. earlier year. * Pop example, a charge filed at the end of 
the fiscal year majC Ijie jcarr led oVer Into the next year's 
statistics. 7^ 

liarpatlve (Jescrlptlon pf -each wage discrimination charge 
from ^^7% to th^ ^rejBenC' . * / 

Answer: 



We do not maintain the 4n^'or''na t Ion In the /nann^r request-ed. 
It woul<i be virtually Impossible to provTde a narrative 
description of every wage charge from 1975 to the present 
Inasmuch as the Commission receives approximately 10,000 
wage charges annually. ^ 



184 



i< Number or chnrv.es ^reCecreii 'to tho Justice Department iilnce 
1975. .• ' 

Answer 

See answer ff'l on prev lous page , 

S Number of civil actions Initiated In each year since 197b. 
'* ■ ■ 
Answer : 



The C^mmlsalon ha.s Tlied the folU^wlnK, suits, Which 
Include direct suits, Interventions and subpoei\a 
enforcement actions, as noted In the Commlss lon\s 
Annual Reports 



1975 - 


180 


1976- 




1977- 


2H\ 


1978' 


188 


1979 


i?08 


19B0 


326 


1981 


368 


1982 


164 


1983 • 


193 



+ fj'l subpoena enforcement act Ions 
+ 5«9 subpoena enforcement actlorvs 

Qi^estlon 8j , * ' 

Some hav.' rotated, critically I tnl^ht H<id , that wo ar.^ trying, 
to uriderhand^Hily -eep "comparable worth" legislation Into the 
law I firmly b-llt^ve tliat the laws that are In place, the 
Knual Pay Art and Title VII of Lhe Civil Rights Act of 1964, 
ire adequate, hut that Title VII Is not being enforced pro- 
perly, i'urther. It '6vomn to me that tho term comparable worth 
•Its" being' used by opponents to pay equity to create the Illusion 
that iiometlilng new and radically different Is being dLscuasod. 
when, in fact, we are simply d'lscusiJlng and trylngvto .eliminate 
a form of Isc r Imlnat Ion . 

Mn^^rViomas, hdw doe* -the elimination of wago Ulsc rlml nat Ion 
differ from comparable worth? 

Answer p 

One difference can he discerned from the ''>upret}le Court's • 
(ieclslon In County of Wa shin gton v. Gunther. -4^2 U.S. 16 1 
(1981). ' Th'eTCourt distinguished that sex based wage 
discrimination claim from a "comparable woi^th" claim 
by noting that undeh a comparable worth theory, "plaintiffs 
might claim Increased compensation on the basis of a 
comparison of the Intrinsic worth or difficulty of their 
Job with of other Jobs. . ^" 1/ and "without direct proof 

of discrimination." 2/ By contrast, the Court noted 
that in G unther , the respondent "sought to prove, by 
vdlrect evidence^ that their wages were depressed because 
^ Intentional 'sex d lac r liVi'-lnat Ion [(TO? to the employer's 
"l^t] consisting of setting the wa^e scale for female 
guards, but not for male guards, at-a level lowc r ^-^thar) - 
its own survey of outside markets and the worth of the 
Jobs warranted;" 

T7~ 4^2 U.S. 161, 166 

2/ .-452 U.S. 161, 166 at f.7 . . • 



185 



In ot(i-r w.,!'l:,, i.4,nlh.T Involv...! „ r.;.i;,„ |. „, , , " 

abs..Mf a ..Mowl„« „r ..,ub,slar,tl«lly .,,,..1 work. Uut. - \ ' ,,. 
■r aot ..n >uu ,..r TIU^ VII Htu..r>.- th.Te Is Jlr ..r -v 1 ,Ih , ^f. - 

«M,. a wom:ir>. Vh,. r„u,.t. .IM not ap,,n,v,. „r 
Jobs . " .u,-h a rornparir.ofi of a 1 1ml la r' lot, ; wllhoMt , r > . • 
oomparabli; wotah . y .ih j 

.o^parl|Vn or ,,ho content or Jobs. Th,. 1,.^ , . U .i! ' , . ' 
!.'pr':;'"^l'a.'"-" ^'""''''^l- ^Pon^-ored th. 1,11, that D.o.ame ..ho 



think It IH important that wo i.avo a ,-i,,^p Uvl.slariv,. 
a.story at thU. point. I.aat year when thP H.u,^ - .InlXi 

word "oomparaMe" Lo "equal" tho o.l,..Tr InlorUl nT ' 
■; i;;:--1>^'- «hole concept. Wo w„nt rro^ "compa ahl""" 
■ ' f "''-'i" thati- the Joba Involv,..) shouLi be. vir- 

tual y l>ont.lcal. that I.-,, they wouhl be very much aUke 
or .-lo.^ly related to eaoh\other. 

... We .lo not. .xpeet. the Labor Department to ko Into an er.tab- 
Uhm.nt an.i attempt to rate Jobn that are not eq„ar. Wo 
■lo not w-vit to h.ar the Department r.ay , 'Well, th,.y amount 
to the .same thlnft', ovalnale them .o they .om • up to ^^e 
.sa>„e .kill or point We expect thl3 to jpp ly J V o "b. 
'JIV? identical or equal!' io9-Cong. Hoc. 

Thus Tor.Kr.'.-iM, In Implement I hk the Kqual P^y Act, dl 3 1 ln«u I sh.Mi 
a ''lalm or se. ba.., wag^ .1 1 ac r Im 1 nan on rnom a c aim o^^ mp^ 
Mo worth when 1. H<iopte.J the "equal payTor .qual work' o^cepU 

n7 I-IT ly'V^''^^'!^ Justices in Gunlhe_r, without ■llapullng 
the majority opinion, tfKso emphaol^i; - » 

' . . iTlhe leglaUcive lUstory of the*Kqiial Pay 
Act clearly reveals that ConKrenn waa unwUMnu; to . 
glv« cither the Federal Government or the courtii broad 
autl)orlty to determine coirjparable wap;'' rate<j. ln<r»'ad 
Congress concluded that governmentnl Inte r ven 1 1 on 't o equal! 
wage dKferentlaKs waa to be undertaken only within one 
clrcumatanCre: when men's and women'.^ Joha were Identical o 
nearly 30, hence unarguably of equal wortti. It defies 
common senae to believe that the name Congreas - which 
a ter IH months oC lieaplngc arjd debates, had decided In 
^ lybj upon the extent Federal Involvement It desired In 
tho area of wage rate i^a l nm.lnt ended aub silentlo to 
. reject all or this work^nrt-to abandon the' Uml tlTtlons or 
the equal work approach Just one year later when it 
enacted Title VII. i;. s . I61/188 ' ' 

Accordingly, this Commission, which la charged with the 
Interpretat lf>n and enforcement or Title VJl and the K(f\jal Pay 
A^t, dlatlngulshea a sex based wage claim fVom a comparable 
worth claim In a manner consistent with t]]n Supreme Court 
and legislative intent. Thus, a sex baj^ori wage claim 
presents a recognized cause or action under 'Title VII. A 
comparable worth claim, standing alone, may not, ' 



lb. J 



186 



The CommUslon will <^ontTn.u. to «ur5n.. any c mrg- which P^^' 
evidence or Inten^lorial v^age .llsKjrlwlna-tion bt.>cau.'je' ..1 an In-tlvl- 
ciaal'3 race, oolor. sex. n:itlonal orl^r.ln or vf^M^ion, r,'V/.n In Uu- 
abSL-nce evl:lonL> that ttie positions In question firre '<;ubs.t.'uit la Uy 



bxiuiil. I'>Tij.>U>yTTH?nt Opportunity C(/iinl:iylon 
OVVice^'^'oV General ('ounSel 



Title VII Wa^e Ulsori'mlnatlon/lviual Pay Act C.Ujto 
KUed Since January, 19t^l*- . 

CASES KILKD 







'ndar Vear: 








19^1 


19B2. ' 




Total 


Tltit^ VI : 'icx L'lno rumination 

Cas^^♦j F 1 1 cd I nvo 1 y I n>^ A liegtit I or.3 
nV Wfige Mr»crlml nation 


7 




6. 


ii 


ConcurnTit Tin*? Vll/bjual 
Pay Act Cjiacs^Pllnd 






'15 


['A\ui\i Pay Act Cases FIUhI 








' 76 
\ 


larAL 




31 




lO^J 


CUmiiOT \TA'I1jS: 














1'^ 






Pending: 




17 


?2 


5^ 



In addition, In caW-ntUir year 19^^ to date the Cormilsslon ha:j approved four 
P.qual P'ly Act r^ijes, six Vjquai Pay /Title VII ra:j(\s, and one Title VII nex 
dlscrlralnatlon ca^e Involving wage discrimination. 



•Totals Include" cases Tiled' from January , 19B1 through December, 19^3. 
The table does not Include cases Uvit were fllecl In 19^1 and resolved 
r>erore August, 1982. when the Off Ice of General Counsel first Implt*- 
tiH^nted Its System 06 case tracking "system. Only cases In active* status 
as of August, 1982, or filed thereafter, were entered In the system/ 



3/12/B^ ■ *Hevl3ed figure. > 

One c^e was erroneously reported twice by 
• Systein 06, and thus in 3/12/8^^ sutmission the 
flgurr? was also counted twice. 

Attachment A 



187 



CAJ-.KS f-'lLKi; IN CALKNDAR YRAH 19H1* 



Title VII Sex Discrimination Casus 
Kiled Involving Allegations of Wa.je 
1 scr imirtat i on ("VII") 

* CooL-urront Tul,» VII/Kfjwal Pay Act 
Cases Ki lei) ("Vll/KPA") 

* Kqual Pay Act Casus F l UmJ ("KPA**) 

l^'-Ii- T^'* ^""^ include- cdsos that wer.^ n lyd ,n 

isui ami rr-solved Dotore August, 1982, when thy Otticr of 
<-.t..ncraJ (loun^ Mrst implemented its System Ob case tracking 
system. V);^ <Mses m active status as of August, 19H2, or 
tile-d t.hj^eaf ter, were* entered in the system. 



AT 



AT 



BI 



BI 



CT 



.PH 



PH 



PK 



PH 



PH 



CH 



CH 



RESP/C.V NO. /DISTRICT COURT/TYPE R£SOL/DATE DTE FIUD/STATUTE BASIS/ISSUES 



City of Spartanburg 
\8l-256l-3, D. So. Carolina 
S, 09-29-82 

Rob<»rt & Company 
C81-2077A, N.U. Georgia 
S. 09-10-82 

Delta Mcdioal Center 
GS-81-180-U-K-0, N.U Miss 
CD, 06-23-82 

Harriifon Cotinty Slu'rrif's 
S8l-0'j1S(R). S.li. Mi'is 
CD, 09-^0-83 
d ' 

Thurston Motor Luies ' 
C-C-8l-..i.4-p, W D. N,C 
S. 07-0'9-82 

A&P et al . * 

81-537^, E.D. P.V 
XXXX, 00-00-00 

Drpxcl Univ, College of" Bus. Adrain,^ 
81-10^3, E.D. Pa. 
SA, 06-0^-82 

First National B.ink of Philippi 
81-283 E, S.D. W., Va . 
CD,- 07-06-83 

Gimbel Brothers, Inc. 
81-lf97, W.D, Pa. 
DIS, 06-04-82 

P^ansylvania Electric Co, 
81-1966, W D. Pa. 
. XXXX, 00-00-00 

^ormaloy Corp. 
81-1U6, N.D. Illinois 
SA, 10-24-83 

Game Plan 

81 C 3990, N.D. Illinois 
CD, 11-24-82-Jrd 



11-23-81 
EPA 



08-26-81 
EPA 



.00-08-81 
EPA 



1 1-10-ai 
EPA 

'VIl/KPA 



12-31-81 
Vl! 



03-18-81 
" EPA 



09-01-81 
EPA 



07-17-81 
EPA 



11-03-81 
EPA 

08-26-81 
EPA 



07-15-81 

vu 



SEX(F) 
W 



SEX(F) 
W 



SF.X^F) 
W 



SEX(F) 
W 



sf:x(Fj 
wo 



SrXl F)/Ry\C(a) 
UUcPK 



' SKX(F) 
W 



SEX(F) 

w 



SEX(F) 
W 



SEX(F) 
W 

SEX(F) 
W 



SEX(F)/RAC(B) 
V/Pcd 



188 



RESP/CiV NO./'jril'K^^LT LoL'U r/TYI'fc. fU:SOL/DATE 
Game PIjq 

80 C 4659, M.D. Illinois 
CD, ll-24-82-3cd 

Dayton Tire^&Kubber Co. tt,^^ 
C-^-ST^iity, ^D. Ohio « 
STIP&DIS, 09-27-83 

Macomb County Community Colleget 
81-725m2, E.D. Michigan 



OrE FILED/STATUTE BASIS/ ISSkfes 



07-15-81 
EPA 

09^1-81 

vn 



07-08-81 
EPA 



SEX(F) 
W 



SEX(F) 
WP 



SEX(F) 
W 



Evening News Association 
79-70987, ED. Michigan 

:<xxx, 00-00-00 



05-11-81 
VII 



SEX(F) 



J.B. Tool ii Engineering 
81 -7074.;, E.D. Michigan 
CD, 09- -82 



03-_-8l 
EPA ■ ' 



se:<(f) 
w 



Ess^x Group, Jnc. 
F8I-0271, N.D. IND. 

x:0(x, 00-00-00 



11-18-81 
EPA/VII 



StX(F) 
W 



Slind Wind/?rhotf Assoc 
3-81-2m5, D, Minn. 
Dis, 06-29-32 



04-10-81 
VII 



SEX(F) 
WD 



Delta Asphalt of Kansas 
J-C-81-118, E.D. Arkansas 
Note, 05-21-JS2 



06-22-81 
. EPA 



SEX(F) 
W 



The Country Club of Little Rock 

L-R-C-81-585, E.D. Arkansas. 

CD, 10-08-82 • r 

I. 

JUvcrview Gardens School District 
8li-0l48-C{3), E.D. MO 
pis, 05-14-82 



08-31-81 



;i04-28-8L 
EPA 4 



SEX(F) 
W 

SEX(F) 
W 



Affiliated Foods, Inc. et al 
81-6066-CV-W, W.D. Mo. 
XXXX, 00-00-00 

Clarcmore College 
81C875B, E.D. Texas 
SA, 12-27-83 



08-19-81 
EPA/VII 

1^-21-81 
EPA 



SEX(F) 
WSd 

StXtF) 



County of Dal las 
CA3-81-0731-R, N.D. Texas 
XXXX, 00-00-00 



05-05-81 
EPA 



SEX(F) 
W . 



Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company 
3-81-1751-C, N.D. Texas 
DIS, 03-U-83-3d 



09-28-81 
EPA 



SEXCF) 
W 



Hurdock Machine & Engineering Co. 
CA3-80-1668-G, N.D. Texas '7 
. 11-16-31 M 



12-19-81 
EPA 



SEXCF) 



Pagbur'n Riviana Foods 
CA4-81-610E, N. D. Tt?xas 
SA, 11-10-82 ^ 

Semndaii Oil Company 
, 81-63-C, E.D. Oklahoma 
J, 04-30-82 



11-09-81 
EPA 



02-09-81 
EPA 



SF.X(F) 
W 



SEX(F) 
W 



19 



■ J 



189 



DE Hooie ot Economy 



sl:<(K) 
w 



!iO Hay goo(>j fool s , I tic. 

W^D. Texas 
XXXX, 00-00-00 



HO Texas Dept. of Corr(»ctions 
H-81-280, S.D. Texas 
CD, 01-18-83 



W 



w 



LA, 



U 



Central Mews-Wjve 

8n7 76RJJi< CD, Cdlifornij 

XXXX, Ord-00-00 

Clark Count? Si.hool District 
81-660. D. Nevada 
XXXX, 00-00-00 



Q7-28-H1 
ADtA/KPA 



r09-81 



RA(:iB)/SEX(F^/AG 
Wb - ■ 



* SEX(F) 
W 



LA I. A. Unified School Distrnjt 
812583RT, D. California 
XXXX, OO-OO-OO- 

LA United Community Efforts 

CV8l-1520Wm, CD. California 
XXXX, 00-00-00 

LA Argonaut Insurance 

CD, 03-00-82 i 



00-00-81 
EPA ^ 

03-30-^1 
Vn/EPA 



06-05-81 

-e?A-- 



'SEX(F) 
W 



SEX(F) 
W 



LA Ccnisco 

81-53^*3, CD. California 
CD, 03-00-82 



; 0 - 1 - 8 I 
FPA 



SF.X(F) 
W 



United Comniunity Effor's 
811S20WMB, CD.' California^ 
Dec, 05-.17-8^ 

PX Murdock Travel , Inc . 
C-81-0527W, D. Utah 
XXXX. 00-00-00 



0^-30-81 
EPA 

/ / 

c)i-i;-8i 

VI I /EPA 



SEX(F), 



, SEX(F) 



PX United Bank of Airi^ona 
819 75PHXVAC. D. Arizona 
. DIS, 08-03-82 



08-13-81 
VII 



SEX(F) 



PX Maricopa Community College 

•8110I8P1KF.MC, D. Arizona 
J, 08-12-83 



08-2^-81 
EPA 



SFX(F) 
W 



SE 



SE 



SE 



SF 



Erik W. Polk, .HD & Idaho Fls Con Hsp. 
C^l-^Of*u, D. Idaho 
XXXX, 00-00-00 

Idaho Falls 
C81-4044, ^ 



CD, 06-0^-83 

United Savings & LoanJ^ 
C8l-'1504,^W.D. WashingioS 
CD, 01-24-83 

Kahn & Nippert 

C81-1085 WWS, U,D> California 
CD, 08- -82 



0^-13-81 
VII 



00-00-^1 
EPA 



12-23-^1 
EPA 



03-11-81 
EPA 



5EX(F) 
W 



SEX(F) 
W 



SEX(F) 
W 



SEX(F) 
W 



^ \ BEST copv mum ^"^-^ 



190 



po 

BI 



CASKS KII.Kt) IN CALENDAR YKAf< ^^^^i* 



nS^ClV NO. /DISTRICT COITRT/TYPF Rf;SOL/DATF 

/ • 



Anderson Electric Company 
CV-82-C-0622S, N.D. Alabama 
Ord, 11-21-83 



DTE FILED/STATUTE BASIS/ ISSUES 



EPA 



SEX(F) 
W 



BI Arrow Truck- Lines, Inc. 

82-C-0543(S), N.D. Alabama 
lO-U-83 

BI Allstate Insurance Co. 
J82-0l86iN). S.D. Mi»ss 
DIS, 08-19-83 

BI L'loyd No I an ^Hospi r J I 

CV82-CKl7{n), N.D. Alaban^ 
XXXX, 00-00-00 



03-15-82 
EPA/VII 



0^-08-82 
EPA 



Oh-j5-82 



SEX(F) 
W 



SEX(F) 
W 



SEX(F) 



CT Anders6n & Wrbb Trucking Co. 
C-82-300-WS, W.D. N.C. 
CD, 12-01-82 



OJ-ll-82 
VII 



SEX(F) 



MM ' Indian River Transport Co. 
822^6CIVTK. M.D, Florida 
XXXX. OO-OOrOO * 



03-16-82 
EPA 



'SEX(F) 
W 



Astra „Ph.a rnu'ui:uj\ii_^_l.a£ ^ _ 



82 Civ 0019, Mass 
CD, 01-29-82 



EPA 



w 



PH United^ Parcel Sf»rvice 
82-06iJl9, W.D.. Pa. 
SS, 12-16-82 



0^-09-82 
EPA- " 



SEX(F) 
W 



PH W. Virginia. Dept. of Health 
82-2187, S.D. W. Va. 
XXXX, 00-00-00 

PH Whiting-Patterson 
82-OJJ83, E.D. Pa. 
DIS,; 12-10-82 

PH Eichler Labs 

82- 3073SA, D. N.J. 
CD, 12-14-83 

PH Rovner's Department Store 

83- 0306, D. N.J. 
^ XXXX, 00-00-00 

PH United Parcel Service' 
82-0619, W.D. PA. 
STIPJ, 12-01-83 



05-04-82 
EPA » 

02-26-82 
'EPA 



09-^^ 
EPA 



ll-_ 
EPA 



-82 



-82 



04-12-82 
EPA 



S£X(F) 
W 



SEX(F) 
W 



SEX(F) 
W 



SEX(F) 
W 



SEX(F) 



PH Shetis^oah Bible Baptist Church 
82-00031M*, S.t). W.VA. 
XXXX, 00-00-00 



V 



10-20-82 
VII 



SEX(F) 
W 



ERIC 



I 



lihv. 



191 - . 

c > 



RESP/CIV S'O /DISIIUlT CUm; VVl'F. HK:;OL/DATF. 



Hjiwdrl School 

82 C 10 M , H.D. IUukHs 

CD, 00-OOrOO 



* 

YAW , ' W 



Home Federal S.ivinj^s iii'l Lojii otiEl^m 
82..C 0806, N I). iUiQois ^ 
XXXX, 00-00-00 



F.PA 



SEX(F) 
W 



tierrill. Lynch, Piercf». Fttnnec lU Smith 
82 C 2922. M D. Illinois 
)OCXX, 00-00-00 



■r,- 1 1-82 



^ sk:<(F) 
w 



Village of Schai-mbiirg 
82CIS25, M.D. Illinois 
)OC<X, 00*00-00 



0 l-2^-H2 
F.PA 



SKX(F) ^ 
W 



L'nivecsity of I l 1 :noi s/Urbaii.i 
82-2in, CD. Iliuiois 

xx:oc. 00-00-00 

CiLy of TaU'.lo P )t n o D^-pL . 
8:-')}9. S.D. Ohij 
XXXX, 00-CO-OO 



0<'--l')-82 



K'-22-82 
tPA 



SF.X(F) 
W 



SF.X(F) 
W 



Acorn Building Components 02-22-82 

82- 70638, E.D Michigan tPA- 
Xm, 00-00-00 

U.S. Tool f« Cuttfr Co . ^ ^ n-29-H2 

E.D. Michigan VII/EPA 
XXXX, 00-00-00 

Hytrol 07-02-82 

82- 72^.52, E D. Michigao " EPA 
XXXX, 00-00-00 

Comocrcial Services 02-11-82 

IP82-I91C, - VII/EPA 

•CD, 11-09-82 

Richard Aston dbaAstons English Bakery 01-05-82 

CA3-82-OC08F, N.D Texas ^ KPA 
SA, 01-21-83 



SEX(F) 
W 



:;F.X(F) 

w 



SEX 
W 

SEX(F) 
W 



JiEX(F) 
W 



Courtesy Mgd. Co dba CM-West Div. 
82-C-198, D. Colorado 
XXXX, 00-00-00 

Claj^D Gas Company 

A-82-CA-59^, W.D. Texas > 

XXXX, .00-00-00 > 

Corpus Christ! ISD 
C-82-71, S.D. Texas 
VDIS, 09-29-83 



02-05-82 
EPA 



n-09-82 
VII/EPA 



0.'t-l2-82 
EPA 



SEXfF) 
WD 



SEX(F) 
W 

SEX(F) 
W 



Wcslaco ISD 
B-82-86. S D. Texas 
SDIS, 08-08-83 

Vtftt^i<»in» Empire Rescue 
F8281EDP, E.D. C>iifornia 
XXXX# 00-00-00 

Queen Beach Printers 

CV82-4a06MRP, 

CD, 09-13-83 



03-19-82 
EPA 



05-17-82 
EPA 



00-00-82 
♦ EPA 



SFJ({F) 
W 



SEX(F) 
W 



19 



192 



DO RESP/CIV NO. /DISTRICT LOURT/TYPt: KKSOL/LWrE (^TK K t LKD/STATLTE BAS I S/ :SSL'RS 



BA 1st VirgiQia Bank ot Tidewater 
83-65 R.D VA 
SA^, 12-19-83;, 

BI .. Guaranty Savinxsi o Lo.in 
83-0468-C, S.D. Aljbjmj 
SA, 09-30-83 



0')- 30-83 
KPA 



KPA 



W 



w 



BI Day ' s' Inn South 
:J83-042^(R) , S.D. 
VDIS, 09-22-83 



ML3S 



W 



BI Wal-Mart, ItKMlb.i W.il-Mjct GuatersviUe 
83-C-2263(1) . S.D. OkLi. 
XXXX, OO-OO-OO 

BI Martin Industries 

83-AK 5699NV, N.D. AUbjma 
XXXX. 00-00-00 

^PH ^ Westinghouse Elc' tric; 
./ . 83- 1209, W.D. Pcim. 
XXXX, 00-00-00 

PH County of Hudson 
83-1669. D M J. 
XXXX, 00-00-00 ■ ^ 

PH Delaware Dept ot Ht-alth 
83-412, D. Del 
XXXX, 00-00-00 



09-22-8 j 



09-29-83 
^EPA 



VII/KPA 



OS -10-8} 
EPA 

0;-07-83 
EPA 



W 



SF.:<(F) 

w 



sF:x(n 
w 



SKX(F) 
W 



PH Miner's Savmgs Bank 
83-1164, rt.D. PA 
XXXX, 00-00-00 

% PH . Gigliotti Corporation 
83-3849, E.D. PA. 
XXXX, 00-00-00 

Dayton Power & Li^ht 
C-3-83-553. S.D. Ohio 
^ XXXX, 00-00-00 



08-15-83 
EPA 



08-09-83 
"VII/EPA 

0t)-20-83 
EP/ 



SKX(F) 



SEX(F) 

SEX(F) 
W 



CL 



A DT 



IN 



AutomatK Vendors 
C83-4570, _ 
XXXX, 00-00-00 

MESA, Local 6 



XXXX, 00-00-00 

Hendricks County Council and Prose Ofc. 
IP83-II48C, S.D'. IKD 
XXXX, 00-00-00 



11-07-83 
VII/EPA 



09-30-83 
VII 



08-09-83 
EPA 



SEXfF) 
WfPcK 



SEX(F) 
W 



SEX(F) 
W 



r 



ME Palm Beac h, et .al . 

83-123, E.D. Kentucky 
XXSCX, 00-00-00 



O'i-17-83 
VII 



SEX(F) 
WdmPb 



ME Memphis Mental Health 
■ 83-2493-H(A), W.D. TN 
'* XXXX, 00-00-00 



06-15-fl 
EPA 



SEA(F) 
W 



.er|c 



I9u 



193 



XXXX. GO-OO-vO 

> 

SL Von }{ot::nan i'rf^;>s . hic loc 1 11.-^ 
81-;i35-CV-.:o, W.Q. Mo. 

x:c<x, 00-00-00 . 

SL Mail I son Scnool QisLriuc 
HJ-S^3I, S 0. III. 

xxx:<, 00-00-og 



EPA 



w 



W 



x:olx, 00-00-00 



I) it Crvi 



YAW 



SL RitenoXjr Cunso 1 i-l.i Cf'i iich D;st.rict 
83- :JI 3-Ci I ) , K.U. Mo. 
XXXX A 00-00 -00 

y 

SL Gootjypjr Tire Hubb^rr -o . i 
• 33~U69-C3). K.D.VMo. 
. 00-00-00 

DA The Lerner Sti<<p'. 

DE I'nitL^l Bank I..>n«:rn ):ir 

?i3-r-jjm, 0. Color.i.lo 
XXXX. 00-0i)'00 
HO Stont* Forv.ir-luig Companv ^ 
G-83-.').\ S.D TX 
CD. 0^)-J/--ii 

HO Sronp Furvar iinK >::ip.iny'* 

CD, 00-27-33 

Sr iionfyvell 

C-8J-'ifl3K. W. U. Was'h" 
SA. 05-2O-B3 

SF Fteemoac Chri:iCi.in Sthool . 

xxxi^roo -60-00 



0<l- V 



KPA/Vi: 




?.PA' 



W 



W 

W 



WD 

Sr.XtF) 
W 



:;kx(K) 



';p:x 



Sr.X{F) 
W 



^7 ^\imi/*B&K' 



19/ 



r 



194 



1 f : VII 



l.scr iin 1 na t i c>n t "V : I " ) 



-fi'.nrr tMir r ; r . V:!.Kqull Pay A.; r 



Kqual J>ay A.:t Cases Kil.-.l t'A 'i 
nst in.-l,i1,.s rases ap-f..vo^1 hy rn^jr^ i ; ^ 

of the ^luterul^Hir has P^cfn rj 1 ^./k^Mi our ir rh^. 'ra;,f has 
not yei' bt?er> r i 1 or th*» C . >mm i :;s i . -n * s fi.-lo 'Ht-i.'h^n 
, fi )t yt-t ronfirr^e.J ttie t i 1 i n.j ot r.he r.vu.. t. o ht'a«rlvj a i l r 
Office 'Jf Gr'fU'r.il C(Miru;el. ' . 

CASt.r. APPROVKLJ HY i'OMmIssIhN IN 

r:o K£ijp/(:;v no .;):;r;^:. : rv:-^ '^^t -r.,-: ■ 





, 00-00-00 ' 



r.AiF) 



w 



IN 



oo-oo-oo 



W 



00-00-00 



VII/KPA 



SL 



00-00-')0 



w 



DS 



, 00-00-00 



0 i-';0->',(j 

VII KPA 



W 



HO 



HO 




, 00-00-00 



vn 



VI I, EPA 



xx:cx. oo-oo-od" 



00-00-00 
VII/KPA 



:^KX(K) 



SF UoiterJ Ai r 1 inr'i 

, 00-00-00 * . , 



00-00-00 
VM/KPA 



';E:x{r) 



er|c 



I9d 



195 



ERIC 



sits 



I9j 



:e - 3 



196 




, Mexij a:; 



At Lint a 
1 ( ago 

U'VC I ,M\f]- , "' 

[Jail.is • • • 
. Df'nvf* r 

Mrnij h IS 
M I ,imi 

'Mi ]w.,likOr .y . 

y\ . 1.(1 ij 1 r> • 
" San I- 1 ?int i*.-«.o 



. -A I 
■ bA 
HI 

.' "en 

-I).;.. 

MF. 



' rx 
si.- 



EPA 



f>P:(. 



S<-J . ' n t Ait t • ■ M [r«.. tt> - 

[^>f 7n\r tit ;>i,siin T ■ ^ 
J.J liirn.int / / 

ij-'K Utf w>fi 7, Vf-.-t t ^.uf^^-nr 



* . r- 



5 



1 



■ A 
.» • 



s ^. \ 



Not HI 



•if* 



ERIC 



1U7 



jVlj:i. Oakak. rtic /Uiaij' is.goin;^ U) ,Ask p^'nnissum to go out of.,'* . 
order. Omvol'Oiir witnrsst'is'is uaabUv to,sta«y, aiui we (y.s^ussed the * 
schedule ronllK;!. It's^ my pi(^asui*e to ask \he prc^sick^nt.al At^XiK/ 
Ken Filaylock, tb appc^nr*. We*?e \ (M*y Kappy4o have you,' President 
'Iilaylocj<. We'd like yoif t(\ int iH)duce"o/ouf associate, a-«;oi(Mnbor of , / 
the l^xecutive Board of the AFL-('I(), lia!'l)ara Jiutchinson. / . , ^ 
/rJiaMk you very much lor c^^^pearing. Ke*r;<,jind' Barbara. I th^urik''^' -•■^ 
^ the o'thev vvitiTesses For allowi^lg us to.proa^ed out.olOrder." ' 

' ^^T?1TKMKNT OK KKNNKTH BI^AVl^X K. I^Ftti^IDKNT. A.MKRK AN 

^K^)K|{ATI()^ of (;()VKj{N>iK\T F:>if*u)VKK^^. AFi.-cio: 

' \Mn. Bi.;a*yix)ck. Thar^k* you/Madani C*ha^*aT and, on behalf ol il^i^^' 
oTOd.DOO oiembers who are Federal f,»ni])loyc^H'-,o^' my ugion that ^ / 

represent, a si/,abl'e number of t^ho^^^^ obyioikly*^beinHAvQnien, let me 
'^i^xpr(»ss nrbv appit^ciatjon Jhr your efforts inthiWarea^ : ^ '"' 

\ . I thitik the rV^'ord^.LS^cloar tha^ the 11,1^ t'}ov/*rni>u«^it as an .(?jn- • . 
"^[^loyerj^has nOf' iived. U{> tc) the cWiniithient whtc'^AveTHink is con- ''.'^/^ ' 
sthutkmal, \o protect the basil' prV^yi^iVj^ritiin^^^ ^'^^'^y^,** ' 

and ho/"fidts<;rin4a3'ati()n in tjij^' couqtr^ j,; - .■ ♦> 

/There's .been a t()t said>by''rjep'asentcrtiyos ol-J'hiH'^^iAnT.nment in r 
^ /justifying' thf ir so-cajjed ^b/^t^sMn the areU/ bu4^tb^?stci,t/istic^ speak.^ 
' "^iC^r theynsafves, artd'^wq11jHtalk!''ai7out a ft*^ of thosl^ t^ckiy. fWo'.ve at- ' 
^ tached sonle'^^uppgrtjftg 'Bot^metiit'ati^lm fhat has;heea claVeljf).p<id by ' -jr^' 
^ -our union which .we wo'iHd asfi: to be inclii^ded iir-tV^^J^^i-'^^'dV ' . 
Ms, O^KAR. Without fihjection. .^^ " . ."^ ^ ^> " 

^'-(The supr>brtrr1gd()rUiTi^mt!'jition follow * ^ " ' 



I 



1*' > 




7 o 



0 ' 



' P 

■ >\ 



198 



STATISTICAL BACKc'.ROUNt: 



OF 



WOMt:N IN THK FKDKRAL GOVEHNMF.NT 



«fTo appreciate the pervasive nature of pay discrimination 
a'jAirtst won\en in the Fedora 1 Gov{?r :imon t , wo will examine some 
\ portiOt?nt s t a 1 1 s 1 1 ("s • wh 1 ch reinforce oLir deep -.oncer n. 

" 

■1. Womon comprise ^2.9\ of tlje Federal work force. 

2/-^ Tho a'.f»ra>ie rt-doral salary f pt wh 1 1 e-<:o 1 1 a r male 

workers is currently $27, 5?^ annually. K-jr female 
. workers, it Is $17,417. Kxpcossod another way, 
womon earn approximately 63 percent of male 
Q-a r n 1 n<j s . 

^ ^ . t^e s p 1 1 e C 1 1 I o VII a n d Fquai Pay Art, /he earnings 
" > iap has been persistent, i.e., remained approximately 

•\ .' t 6y t'i 5 2 p^^rc«nt over trie past de^'ad^. Women's 

^ earn mis in prv/a te *sec t o r , as ratio of men's earnings, 
1 s cur r en t ly 6 H , 



Womon by 'grado level: % of a 
women are emp 1 oyed in grades I 
compdrison,*mt*n in 
total male Federal 
cjrade t')r wome/i is 
8.33. f. 



1 Fodoral white-collar 
throLiqh 9. By 
grades L through *9 only 39^ of the 
working population. The average 
6.26; the average grade for men is 



Fay disparities against women are more evident m 
tht* Department of Defense* Whereas the^Federal wage 
bias mirrors existing practices in the private sector; 
there is even a greater bias in the ("department of 
Defense, the largest employer of women the Federal 

Government. This additional wage baas can be traced 
tp the -military view of the value of women in the work 
pTace. 

- UoD Employees 246,196 white-collar women, which 
represents over *37% of the total Federal female 
work force . 

^ . . 

- 9U of females in DoD are working in grades 1 
through 9. 

Less than 1% of the women in DoD are in grades 
13 or above. < 

- The Average grade for women in DoD 5. 65; 
compared 'to 6.26 for wortien in all agencies. 1 

The majority of women are concentrated in lower paid 
occupational gr oup i ngs , ' wh i ch provide limited 
opportunities for ad vanci&men t . In the Federal sector, 
there are four major white-collar occupational - 

categorizes of jobs: Professional, Administrative, 
- Technical, and Clerical. The Clerical category 
(embracing the lowest positions) is»the only group 
in which women earn the approximate salary of men* 



6 . 



• erIc 



20^ 



199 



4 



.Jer Men K.icn M^-trt* Tnan 



t' c s ."^ 1 : :i e r : . - » » 

P ~ s r > 1 w : r, i ■ r • , !i - r • ? h r m i n ; jr.' 

;)n".y It'ss trhan their male rountorpar lii . 
Tn i'r> .- jr* be tr:a^**»d to the jains mide m 
■ p-; s t a se r V I t.Tc ht»LMuse of t ne r : 'jh t lo^ 
•c^r ja 1 n ovr?r pay . 

r oiwte s H e^ Va 1 1 ey A u t h ■ : r i r y 

These Federa) employees also ^ariain tor waies. 
There is less than ^.2^ d i f f ren^-e in -p ly 
between men and women en^p 1 eyed in T . V . A . 

T.V.A. employes almofst 7 ,000 women. ^ ^ 

A I L Agenc I es . O epdr tment o t Qentense 



No.Ot Women K Women No. of Wojnen t Women 



DI STRI BUTION 


OF WOMEN 


BY GRADE 








73 , 


. 7 


1,031 1 


11 ,1 


17,596 




76 , 


. 7 


6,157 


79 .9 


82,539 




76 , 


. 7 


32,423 


82.2 


170,653 




77 , 


. 5 


55 , 404 


79 .9 


192,072 




77 

4 


. 1 


58 ,824 


72.5 


89 , 303 




72 


. 8 


23 ,60'8 


69 .9 


132,926 


• 


53 


.9 


24 ,704 


■ 46.9 


30,690 




52 


.6 


3,69^ 


J5.9 


.160 ,837 




41 


. 2 


19,118 


31.4 


28,858 




37 


.9 


699 


12.2 


16 3,892 




24 


.5 


12,151 


18.0 


167,398 • 




14 




■6,799 


9.8 


117,147 




9 


.6 


1 ,753 


5.0 


63,847 




' 6 


.8 


423 


2.9 


34,619 




6 


.5 


130 


2\ 3 



200" 

Ayei;aje Grade h.2t) 



S . 6 



Total occup'ation series - 1^0 * 

% of s».»rivs wh^^r^i :r;(>n rndke more $ r.h.m wjmen - " y ; a 



Total ►'-irup.-f t i On . st^r MT, ^ \ 
No, :) f series whore m t- n m c^'f^ 




NO, -serivs vherL;>ii»:'n T.ake ;ptjre 6 ^han women - U> * 
% of li.nves wtu^re m^'p make T.'.r-' 3 ^hui worren - U ■; ? 

^ Some white-c/. ■ ^r -cLipa a i on s where me^ make inora motiey, 
1 

than women: , ' ■> 



I . Home Fcc^^om i 



- Men 527 , 3'^4 

- Women $27, 143, 
c 

2. *'Jietician - ?^en 323, 92U 



* -3 



Women if 523 ,8 3. 



K Nursing Assistant - Men ^$13,106 

- Women $1^,036 



\ appears ley-itimate to conclude that where th^?re are 
f*;male-pr lented^jobs, theri" is no ^las in fAvor of women's pay, 
but wH?n the ]obs are male dominated, women earn onl^ two-thirds 
of men's pay. " 



20-1 



r 



• ' 201 

• • ^ > ' • ^ *: . .-^ 

Mr, Bkaylock. You.r rect)gnitTon of the fact that the constitution- 
al principles. of fairness and equality must be rootecHn the. realities 
af 6conomics and our pay and classification system is both gratify- 
N ing'and reinforcing to those of us who struggle for these rights.^ ' 
eVery day. ^ * , 

In fact, the labor \inion movement, as you know, is grounded in 
. ^hest\same principles. While the role of the P'ederal Governm^t in 
^our society is and should'be c^tinually questioned in our demo- 
^ cratic process, it's, our convictiiii that the responsibility for leader- 
ship oTthe P'ederal Governmc^nt in addressing v^idespread discrimi- 
^ nation cannot be i^estioned. ^ . 

Wji in the F'ederal sector should be the role model in this area a,s 
our society attenr\pts to eliraii;ate discrin^inatorv wage practices. 
We are pleased thjat H.R. 0092 and 4^)99 have be^n introduced and 
that these hearings are beir^ hejd^ \J - , 

We belie.ve that the passage' implementation^n^ enPofcement of 
effective pay equity legislation will show the Nation {he impor- 
tance >md the depth of the wt^ge problem fa(jing women workers. 
The case where two employees, one male, one female, both do the 
same work, but the male is phid more, continues to be a practice . 
and a. problem in the private sector, and is still far too prevalent in 
the Federal sector. \ 

Equal pay for equal work is still a goal, not a reality. We'd like 
to point out that currently the entire burden of proving equal pay ' 
discrimination falls almost solely on the unions and the. employees. 

For instance, in AFGE we have a fair practices department with 
a full-time staff at our national office, and over part-time and 
full-time people in the field. 

This stuff is kept continuously busy handling these types of prob- 
lems on pay equity and othfer discriminatory practices being per- 
petuated by the Government as 'an Employer. 

The second type of problem we have in this area is the employ- 
ment barriers. It wasn't so long ago when various professional-tech- 
nical schools excluded women; when women doctors and lawyers 
wer^' r&>e; and women who worked were relegated to a limited 
number of occupations. • 

Although. many legal barriers are falling, there still exist equally 
imposing social barriers, including employers reluctant to hire 
women in nontraditional roles. In the Federal sector, many offices 
have women, senior secretaries, whose activity is of an administra- 
tive nature, but they continue to be classified in the clerical series, 
which we'll talk about a little fdrther on. 

One of the most fruitful potential sources of career growth for 
women in the Federal Government allows them the opportunity for 
seasoned secretaries to ^scend to the administrative aide or assist- 
ant sphere. Yet the startling facts are that of the 27,746 jobs of ad- 
ministrative assistants, only 21.3 percent are held by women in the 
government today, and their average salary in this field is $5,000 
below that of their male counterpart in the same series. 
. To effectively address these employment barriers, the legislation 
must recognize the needs for: one, revising the existing classifica- 
tion standards and evaluation system; two, change the ingrained 
attitude of managers toward women and the work they perform; 



20o 



ERIC 



thrw, provide lor the ad^vancement o[)[)ortunity out ol' the clerical 
job series tcthe adniinistrative job series. ♦ \^ v 

And the third cati^^^ory is pay e(iuit>^he subject of these hear- 
ings, {^obs wliich are preilominantly held by women ifre underval- 
ued by ern|)loyers relative to jobs held predominantly by men, 

Tlie reason for^ this undervaluing i^ many. The (^annelinK of 
wometi into* select(»d occu[)ati()ns created an ()vet*su[)[/v of labor lor 
these positions, thus de[)ressinK th(» wage's. Once these relativ<' 
wage |)atterns were established,^ they became v(»ry diVficult to 
bteaW - ' 

^ And even today, em[)loyers will respond that they've never [)aid 
their secretaries well. The federal sector, which sets its wagos 
based on wages- in the privafe sector, mirrors the employment and 
wage patterns in the [)rivate sector, 

•Our altem[)ts to' break out ol' this relative wage })attern to date 
has failed. The res[)onsibilify ol the Federal (iovernment to set the 
pace in achieving [)ay ecjuity directly conflicts with the curretrt pay 
and classification systems, which transfers the discriminatory prac- 
tices of the private sector into the Federal se,ct()r\ 
^ You have in the Federal sector the snme economic conflict that is 
used as an excuse in this area as exists in the private sector. In the 
[XMvate sector the discrimination, the inequity exists purely Ibr 
profit purposes. 

The compar\^v, the employer' in tji£' privat(» sector pays anybody 
as little as they can, male or female, but because of the practices 
and attitudp that exist they've been able to pay less to the female 
worL^'rs than they have the male. 

It s for [)rollt. In the Fi^deral sector, its in the guise of keeping 
the cost of government down, but the basic reason is the same. 
They work people. They exploit [)eople. They do it cheaper by 
-saving on the salaries, and that's what's happening in the govern- 
ment today, as everybody on this Hill and down on Hith Street is 
strangling with this Federal deficit as we move into a political 
year. 

Ms. Oakak. As if Federal em[)loye(\s were responsible Ibr the def- 
icit. You get blamed for it all, don'f you. They blame P'ederal em- 
ployees for the deficit problem, when we know it's so many other 
e x t( m u a t i n g c i r e u m s t a n c es . 

Mv^ Bi.AYi.ocK. Well, weVe used to— male and female worker 
alike— we're used to being used as scapegoats in the Congress for 
the administration's inability to manage the affairs of government. 
You're 100 percent right. 

You know, I see where the Governor of Virginia says our P'ederal 
retirement |)rogram is a major cause ol the deficit. So we're used to 
that, but we don't Hke it, and we'll continue to work to resolve it. 

And this is one of the areas where the discrimination definitely 
comes out. 

We've long been corjcerni^d with the ineq^uaiities in wages be- 
tween the female and the male workers. Despite title VII of the 
li)f)4 ('ivil Rights Act and the Elqual Pay Act, the earnings gap be- 
tween men and women in the F'ederal sector has remained virtual- 
ly constant over the past decade, as some of the attached back- 
ground material I referenced earlier shows. 



(Currently the avera^^e salary Ibr white-collar male workers in 
the Federal sector is $27.r)70 pvv year, while- that ol' the leniale 
worker is $17,417. hi translating^ the earnin^^ to ^M'ade levels, So 
percent ol' all Federal, white-collar wonivn.workers are employed in 
Kr<j(les I throu^^h !). while men employed in the same ^mdv levels 
represent only i^i) [)ercent of the total maJe work force. 

A more specific example of* the problem of* pay equity in the Fc^l- 
eral (jov(<rnnient is the Department- of Defense. A review has 
shown that the Defen.se Dc^partment employs 24().1)1() white-coUar 
wom'en. However. !)1 percent of thase vyomen are working in K^'^ides 
I throu^^h !), while le.ss than, 1 pe.rcent are employed in K»'<ides 
and above. 

In fact» women ir^ the Defen.se Depar'tment have an aver;i}te 
^rade of r),r)(). while the avera^a' ^nade for women in all agencies is 
However, once again the average grade for maU* workers is at 
and'it outdistances that of all female workers. 

Now. if you (equate that to dollars, that gr'ade gap of an X.IVA and 
that ol' the a.f)!;. Madam Chair, that equates to $!.(){){) per year dif- 
ference in salary. Again. I would just reem[)hasi/.e the three areas 
that liave to be dealt with. One. the blatant di.^criniination; two, 
the ern[)l()y ment barriers; and thre(\ the .systemic imbalance built 
into our classification and pay .system. 

In the Federal (lovernment. the majority of women are concen- 
trated in the lowest-paid occupational groupings, W'hich provide 
limited o[)porf unity R^^^^^^^ Des[)ite the Federal e(iual op- 

[)ortunity recruitment [)r()grani, affirmative action, upward mobili- 
ty [)rogranis. Federal women workers, continue to ear'n less than 
males, 

hi alliiour of the major white-collar occupational categories of 
professional, administ r'at ive. technical and cl(M*ical. maU\s earn 
more than females. In fact, in the professional category, which is a 
total of 125) job series in our classification system, in \2ii Of thosx^ 
series men .earn more than women workers. 

In the other three, they about balance out. In the administrative 
categories, which has a total of lal^ job series, again, in lot) of those 
series men earn mor'e than women. Again, only three whore they 
balanceX 

And t(rK;ally rub salt into the wound, the one series that is con- 
sidered the occupation that is primarily female, out of a total of 70 
Job s(MMes in me clerical field, men earn more than women in only 
'U) of* those* job series. Hut" that says even in the clerical field, over 
half of* the series classiflcatrons, hien still earn more than women 
in what's considered to be a pretfominantly female occupation. 

The [)roblem in the Federal (lOVfM^nrni^nt is grave, and it can't be 
addressed solely by relying on the cfvil rights laws which have 
been enacted. The payment of wages for a particular job in the 
Federal (lovernment is directly linked to- our cla.ssiflcation system. 

It's evident from th(* statistics we've cited to the comnuttee today 
that the job seriejii which are predominantly occupied l^y females 
are paid less than those occupied by male?^ 

When an agency establishes a job, many factors determine the 
grade Ivvel. A major distinction determining grade level is whether 
a task to be performed in, a job is substantive versus being proce- 
dural. 



20/ 



201 



^ Kurtlier. many jobs ()ccu[)ied by women cannot be used as credits 
toward otlu»r job categories. A IVc^quent arui recun ing [)!'()blern in 

'the Federal (lOvernrnent is d(»ad-end j()l)s, Once the clericals reach 
the top grade level in the clerical category, there is no credit given 
toward job skills acquired in the clerical job to a job in the [)rofes- 
sional category or the adrninistrativ(^ category, as an exaru[)le. 



'jTob to qualify for any entry iJvi^l i)rolessional job categori(\s in hos- 
pital administration. In short( there is no mechanisiu lor hori^.ontal 
movementyamong the four nnijor'job categories' in the Federal 
^^ector Aid in that classification system/ 

Mecnanitms^-an be built into the ?Vderal cU^^^sification system to 
eliminate the gross dis[)arities which our statistics re^'eal in tJhe 
Federal Crovernment today. The I)ffice of Personrtel Mariagement 
which is responsible for the classnication ol" [)ositions and the regu- 
lations, which apply to this area has made *little or no effort to 
erase t»hese disparities. 

I see by the news accounts that \)\\ Devine 'ap()earA'd before your 
committee yesterday and basically said that there >s*no need for 
further legislation, there is [)lenty of . law on the books to imple- 
ment and enforce this fairness and eliminating this inequity, »^ 

Well, I hope the committee asks Mr. Devine to answer to some of 
the statistics, which come out of 0PM by the way, that we are 
citing. And I can only think of excuses that' could be made, not rea- 
sons, because that is his responsibility and it is the CJovernment's 
responsibility. The facts are here. Madam ('hair. 

I would like to [)()int out that the w*iy in which 0PM chooses to 
construct and publish a standard has a deep effect on pay equity 
and career ()[)portunities. As an exam[)le. Federal libr^^rians, 
predominantly women, have just lost a hard-earned wage benefit. 
The master's degree, which has commanded a (JS-i) recognition, 
now earns only a (iS-7 Ijecause of an impossible HO credit-hour re- 
quirement that has been imposed by 0PM despite present universi- 
ty practices of accrediting 1^2 to iUi hours for the master's degree. 

Another example where 0S-() level CcWi be an important bridge 
in the clerical category toward entry into the administratiye man- 
agement T^phere, it is damaging to career opportunity. Iri^fact, there 
.is no career opportunity because they have now droppK^d those 
levels from the mail and file clerk standard and the correspond- 
ence clerk standard. There is no US-(), there is no, bridge for those 
categories ^at all. 

Ms. Oakar. This was adopted in those two cases in recent 
months. 

Mr. Blayix)(;«. Yes, ma'am. 

Ms. Oakak. And they are predominantly female occupations, li- 
brarians and the clerical workers. ^ 

Mr. Bi.AYLoCK. Not only are they not attem[)tihg to build bridges, 
in accordance with the current law to develop affirmative action 
\ plans andjwhat have you, they are eliminating those few that were 
there, andjthat has happened during this administration. 

In the technician sphere where GS-f) is the usual journeyman 
level, it is just as damaging to have depicted in the licensed practi- 
cal nurse standard a benchmark only for GS-") work in the psychi- 




atric war(] and to have omitted the more typical (iS-f) work in a 
general .ward setting. Both downgrading and denial ol promotion 
opportunity have msulted from this calculated omission. Again, in 
the name of reducing the cost of Government, these actions are 
now being taken in .regards to our classification system, which wa^v 
bad enough to slart with. ^ 
To enhance equity for women through th(» position cl^issification 

^system, we urge the ('(^1^^*^^"^^ instruct 0PM to review eacli of the 

'22 major families of ()CCU[)ations*in our classification system to de- 
termine which series in them could yield s[)ringl)oards of career 

.movement vertically as well as* laterally to eliminate the deadend 
situation and also to create career o[)portunity and take advantage 

^ of the skills learned by women in these series, in these clas%ica- 
tions that now exist that do qualify them to move into and produce 
m(Jire actually. It is niuch better utilization of human resource if 
you get right down t^^good management concepts. 

Just as op[)ortunity has been provided, by the way, for account- 
ing technicians who n^eet certain experience/education require- 
ments to become accountants and for engineering technicians to 
become (Migineers, both m^le donunated, every gob family should' 
have tliose kind ()!' bridg^idvin in them. 

Wc>iurge also that all cllbrTcal standards include at least the (iS-(! 
level because that is a K^':or a bridge to further career growth in 
those occu()ations.^ 

Pay eq'uitvjchas been achieved in thosv areas where unions have 
bargainc^d for pay on behalf of workers. Two exani[)les— keep in 
mind the reji^ular system that we ixrv taking about and Mr. Devine 
has a responsibility to^see that progress is made in eliminating 
these discriminations we transferred in from the private sector into 
(Jovernment under the guise of comparability— bat in only two in- 
stances vyhe.re we have made progress since the la\ys were passed 
has been in the fWo areas where 0PM, the centralized agency 
recflly does not have that much say so. And the problc^m has not 

-been eliminated there,' but the statistics show that there has been 
progress. U.S. Postal Service is an example; 

Now, the gap between the m<tde/female worker is at percent. 
Haven't eliminated it, but using the same sets of standards to de- 
velop the statistics for the rest of the Federal sector. 

TVA [Tennessee Valley Authority], rhat gap is now 2 percent. So, 
in those two areas where the centralized 0MB operation, central- 
ized 0PM operation does not have jurisdiction there has been 
progress made because there was employee involvement in those 
areas. 

'We^support the principles of both H.R. 501)2 and 4599. Again, we 
would like to express our appreciation for the introduction of those 
bills and holding the hearings. We maintain that the F'ederal Gov- 
ernment should be a role, model for employers, that the Federal 
Government has a, responsibility to address problems of fairness 
and equality in our Nation. And that responsibiHty dictates that 
the Federal Government take the lead in eliminating wage dispari- 
ties between men and women. 

1 would like to conclude my remarks with a list of very specific 
recommendations. . 



r)-003 0 - 84 -14 ^' U 



2(){\ 

\ 

?'irst and foremost, wo thitik it is incumbcMit again U[)on Con- 
tjress to direct the executive branch. We think there is a shortcom- 
in your |)roposed bill where you ask the very peo[)le who have 
created the problem to do a study. We think the facts are*here. We 
think ("ongress- should direct the admxtiistration in your legisla- 
tive—in the language of this bill. We thitik they should be directed 
to again correcting the problem and report back to the I'ongress on 
a regular basis as to how much progress is being made. We think it 
has been studied long enougfi and asking OI^M to go study it when 
Ifhey have^set here and told you there is no [)roblem, it's like asking 
the fox to*gu<^^*d the hen house and w\» have seen too much of that. 
We are concerned specifically 

Ms. Oakak. Ken, you 'might want to note that yesterda^ Dr. 
Devine announc(*d that 0PM wa"^ conducting their study. OPM 
started a study and I asked hinvif thuy were in any way inspir'ed 
by our commilter's work. They denied that. Rut, it was coinciden- 
tal that the study just began on the day that we were going to 
iiWite him to testify. ' • 

Mr. Bi.AYi.ocK. Well, we all, obviously, went to a lot of different 
schools than quite a few of these people and, you know, they have 
studied it to death. We come out with different equations and the 
hard facts are there. 

Very specifically, we think section lib) (1) arid [2) of the bill will 
not do the job because there again the problem I just mentioned' 
*So, we would rec()mniend very strongly you seriously consider some 
changes in there. ' ^ 

Seconds one [)ossible approach, we suggest that the legislation in- 
struct the I)e[)artment of Labor to at this [)oint identify the defi- 
ciencies in the area of the classification, job standard, career ad- 
vancement, training and job evaluation which^has led to the exist- 
ing wage discriminatory i)ractices. We think they can be identified 
quite easily, and once they are identified, then we think we 
should -then the legislation should requir*e correction. 

Third, we further recommend that the Department pf Labor be 
mandated to set th.' standard.^ for the elimination of the identified 
defici(MK*ies. 

Fourth, legislation should establish a strict timetable for the 
identification of the deficiencies and the establishment of *the 
standards. 

Fifth, the agencies should be given 1 year to meet the establisTjed 
standards and elimin^Ue the deficiencies, the Department of Laf)or 
should be required to report to the Congress on a periodic basis on 
the status of the agency's implementation plans. 

Sixth, the legislation should establish the right of employees and 
their representatives to seek judicial enforcement of the Depart- 
ment of Labor standards. p]mplnyees should be entitled to relief, in- 
^ eluding backpay and any other such remedies which would bring 
*the agencies into compliance with the Department of Labor stand- 
ards. 

Seventh, legislation should be properly funded to insure imple- 
mentation and not hollow promises. % 

Kighth, again, specifically section. 2(b)( 1) should be amended by 
inserting the words— after the word "techniques,'' the words ''in- 
cluding occupational and position comparisons.*' It is not specific in 



what it is r;('(iuirinK to ht' done thorc^ and think l\wn^ it has to 
Ko to th(» standards thcrnsolvcs. the chissilicalion standards. 

Ninth. \\c have' a sot o^ninor ohan^t's which \V(» Ixdiovo would 
stron^^thon tho findings an'd purpos(^s of thc^ two hills. 
* Stjction ol" I I.R. l.")!)!). Soction l^iaHf;) should Ik^ anuMidc'd to road^ 
**The c(;nlrihutions ol" foniale workers aro vital to our- ocononiy. and 
tho continued oxistcnct^ and tol(M*Anco ul' tlioso discriminatory 
wa^^o-settniK practices and wa^o dilTerenlial prevent lull utilization 
()l the tnleiUs. skills, experience, and potential contributions of 
I'eniale workers and resuU in the special ex[)loitati()n of those work- 
ers." 

Section should, l)e amended to read: "The aforementioned 

^prohh^ns and conditions, wliich are [)resent in the United States 
Kc^nerally. are also. present in tlie Federal (loverri^^it, because tlie 
Federal pay and ukissificat ion system merely transfers the private 
sector* discriminatory practices into tlie ^ VderaVsector." 

S(»cti()n -^ih) should b(» amended to read: ''Reco^ni/inK that the 
ehmination of discriminatory waKe-settir\K [practices and wa^e dif- 
ferentials is in the public int(M^^st, and that the elimination of such 
discrimination is the establishtd res[)onsihility of the Federal (]ov- 
CM'nnu^nt." 

Madam (liairman, that concludes r^y remarks. Barbara would 
like to expand on some of the points |hat we make liere, A.s you 
know, she is the director of our wonu^n s program and our fair 
practic(^s department. Slie is a nuMiiher* of our* executive council, 
and also a member of the AFI.-CIO Kxecutiv(^ ( ouncih and we ar*e 
quite proud of the pr-o^ress we have macfe in .our own union and 
our pc^ople are pr*oud of the efiort we ar^e puttin^^ into this kind of a 
problem, and Barbara has sure been in the forefront of it. 

So, Barbara. 

STATKMKNT OF HARHARA 1^ HrT( IMNSON, DIRKFTOR, WOMKN'S 
DKRART.MKNT, AMKRICAN FKDKRATION OF (iOVKRNMKNT KM- 
PI.OYKKS. AFF-FIO 

Ms. Hutc hinson. Madam Chairwoman, I want to thank you^^for 
having us apf)ear before you today and for holding these hearings 
and introducing these ^bills. This is a very grave and critical prob- 
\vm for Federal women workers and th(^ breath of the problems is 
illustrated by the fact that currently we have class actions pending 
m the administrative sti\ges against the Department of Defense 
and the Social Security Administration based on sex. 

Those ca.^s rave been in the processes for approximately 8 i 
years, each of t+fjm. I think that that is just some indication that ' 
th(Te are some severe problems out here for womtm, and we also 



have any number 
for our members 



of cases i)n individuals that -we are representing 
are also training our members in equal em- 
ployment opportunity processes and at AFGK, we have been negoti- 
ating contract larguage on affirmative action, sexual harrassment, 
and upward mobility programs. 

^ And let me kinti of give you some reason why we went to collec- 
tive^ bargain ihg for these processes. The reason why we went to 
putting specific language in our collective bargaining contract is 
because we were not geUing anything at all in terms of responsive- 



noss out of the Federal TOPX) pro^M'ains. Our nuMnhers cannot ^et 
through the CK)in[)laint [)r()cessing. 

The Fedi^ral eni[)l()y(*es in tiMMiis ol* discriiniuatioii matters have 
been under continuoui^ attack. Kv(»n though the KFX)(' received 
funding for n(»w hir^es in {\\v Federal sector for the alTirniative 
action compliance [)r()grarti in {\\v [)revi()us adrnini'st ration, this ad- 
ministration fias cut the stalling ol ^-that [)r()gratn so that it is im- 
possible to [)(M rorm com[)liance revi^'ws due to lack ol* stall. 

The Chicago— - - 

Ms. Oakar. H I could just interru[A. You heard th<WvK()(' criti- 
cize one of my bills i)as(»d on the fact that it wcm^ iiiv()l ve more 
hiring ofstaiT. 11* they had' not/pT>a)()sed all th()sj;mIP"s in that area 
of law enforcement, they would run even ustv^Kat as a factor. 

It is interesting that the Reagan administration has been very 
selective about whert^ they want the cuts. Drastic reductions were 
nuide in the Education I)e[)art meat's WKPJA [)r()gram. H is inter- 
esting jl has been in that division of the EP]()(' and so on and so 
forth. ' , 

The Chair* would like to observe that it seems as if the Defense 
Department has not been the area where they, in terms of weap- 
ons, have been cutting. You do not have to comment because I 
know you re[)resent Federal employees IVom every agency. 

In [)ersonnel related to civil rights issues, they hav^e cut acr'oss 
the board. I thought it was ironic that he would use that as_his 
criticism of the bill, the very weak argument in my judgment. 

Thank you. 

Ms. Hutchinson. One of the [)roblems that we have and you 
know we rep)resent the employees of the KKOC, and we have been 
monitoring how many attacks have beert taken on affirmative 
action and the affirmative action compliance units lor the Federal 
sector, in fact, the C'hicago District Office of the VjVDC has only 
three employees with no supervisor and no clericals to cover PVdei- 
al facilities in seven States, 

Now, these employees are supposed to review the Federal agen- 
cies' affirmative action plans to see that they are being implement- 
ed. In fact, there are ho reviews being done. They have assigned no 
travel funds to these units and, so, I agree with you that what the 
chairman says, the facts belie what his statements are. 

In addition, there is another plan on the drawing boards that is 
under the purported F]p]OC reorganization that would merge these 
affirmative action units into the hearings unit so that th^ people 
who were formerly doing hearings for Federal employees would be 
doing both things; that they are going to merge these units togeth- 
er so you would not have separate units, you would have the af- 
firmative action plans being revfewed by the same people who were 
doing the hearings. * 

We had another new thing that was introduced under this ad- 
ministration in the lilEOC regulations. As you know, the way the 
li)7H Civil Service Reform Act was set up an employee had the 
right to. make an election to choose whether to go through the EI^O 
processes or to go to the Merit Systems Protection Board if they 
had a case that was appealable to MSPB. 



Tho KK()(' orfld^M^ Chairman Thomas issued a new reKulatian 
which arhitrarily Kave the KKOC the ri^ht to determine where a 
person would" IHe a eom[)|aint for [)rocessinK. 

We have o|)[)()sed that i)articular reKuhiJion. We commentu^n 
it. We were o[)[)()sed to it. an^l it was im[)lemented in t^ji'o case5?B|tt 
we hav(» ri^ht now in our administrative process and we have mod 
a p(»tition in those cases ♦o,trv to soK'e that problem. 

We also have a third case that we were not^ied'ol' this week 
where the MSPIi actuijily refused to h(>#u' the person's complaint 
and referred it hack to the Kia)(\ [)UttinK our member Federal em-^ 
ployees into a le^al Hiorass: Where do they ^o? How do they get 
discrimination [)r()blems*taken care of? . \ * 

We do not feel the f^KOr is doing its job in ndation to Federal 
em|)loyees and we think that that is an indication of t heir .commit- 
ment to enforcement of* the rights of women and 1 thirik that their 
regulations and their records s[)eak for itself. 

In the area of employment harriers, again, the Federal (Govern- 
ment has done httle or noUiing to eliminate and correct the prob- 
lems. ' N • 

As our statistics show, worjien are being held in low-paying jobs 
with limited career ()[)p()rtur/ities for growth. The limited^opportu- 
nities available under affWfative action, and upward mobility, are 
clearly not enough. 

We believe that this legislation should require the correction of 
the [)robIems in the classification system which have become in- 
grained. 

For example, a key[)unch operator position is defined as routine 
work, and falls in the lower range of the general schedule. Yet. a 
keypunch operator in any agency must have knowledge of the 
agency laws, rules, regulations, and operations in order to properly 
perform the job. 

This is particularly true of the Social Security Administration, 
where data entry operators must enter claims processing informa- 
tion. Our women members are currently being assessed errors if 
they enter information which is incorrect in accordance with the 
regulations; yet, they receive very few points in the job evaluation 
system for knowledge of laws, rules, and regulations. 

Another neglected evaluation factor is stress. Ouf^. claims and 
complaint processing memberji in the Veterans' Adnhinistration, 
the Social Security Administration, the Equal Employment Oppor-4^ 
tunity Commission, and other agencies, receive little, if any, points 
for stress even though they must constantly respond to citizens, 
and make^determinations on their requests 8 hours a day. 

In fact, in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 
terms of the intake people, people who take in complaints fft)m 
people who come to the agency, the EEOC has now made a request 
to downgrfide the job to a (JS-T. Their rationale being that it can 
no longer support a GS~9 because it is routine work. 

They said that they were making that determination at the di- 
rection of OPM, and becai^e they said the person does not have- to 
do anything but process paper. In fact, an intake officer in the 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission must know the juris- 
dictional requirements of ti^le VIF They must know all of the laws 
and regulations on age, equal pay, and yet they are not going to be 



ERLC 



V 

2l,i 



^10, • 

given any credit based on the statement of tht chairman of the 
Equal P^mployjnent Opportunity Corlimission. 

Ms. Oakar. 1 find this arN ititeresting example: 

You mean Ufhat within the EEOC framework^ they are requesting 
for a downgrading of what at^' obviously goiug to be female pos7- 
tions? . . 

Ms. HuT(*HiNS()N. Yes, they are. Many of those were bridge jobs 
for clericals to go into. 

Ms. Oakak., WelK i'f that doev^n't demonstrate one of the severe 
ironies of this administration. That s about as blatant, I think, 
as 

Mr. Blayi.ock. It is this centralized system, the very point you 
• madp cT- moment • ttgo - o-n the mranpow^er sta'ndardt^* where4hey '-take* • 
across-the-board cuts and they apply it to every agency without 
looking af the impact at all. And the same thing has happened to 
classification ^itandf^ds, they don't care wKere the people work. 

If it'^ a clerical series, it's a clerical series. All women anyway so 
dop't worry about it, and^cut it, and drop it, and wherever it im- 
pacts it. She's talking about these intake review officers that have 
to have the knowledge of the regulations, the law, the jurisdictions, 
and4hat is — in the factor evaluation system^you're given credits in 
technical and professional field for having to have that knowledge. 
You'xe not given any credit in the clerical field for having to have 
that Knowledge to make an evaluation. ^ 

And you can't address this problem without attacking that classi- 
fication system. That is a big part of the barrier. 

Ms, Hutchinson. That is currently going on as part of the reor- 
ganization negotiations. So that I take issue with Chairman 
Thomas. But reJated and acquired experience and knowledge is an- 
other employment barrier for women. A^ clerical position, no 
matter what the ^skills acquired, and knowledge required, - can 
rarely be used to bridge the gap to the professional and technical 
series except at the Iqwest level. 

In fact, a senior secretary in Federal employment would be hard 
pressed to convert her acquired knowledge and experience to a pro- 
fessional job in the administrative office of an agency without re- 
ceiving a college education. 

This brings us to a third barrier, that of training. Oyr women 
members are "Constantly refused training because the regulations 
require that training be directly related to your job. Therefore, 
clerical and personnel clerks cannot take a course in personnel ad- 
ministration because it is not related to her job as a secretary. 

This is repeated throughout all the job categories, and this is an- 
other area when we have gone into negotiations with agencies; 
where we have had a terrible difficulty. It does not make any dif- 
ference how you define the language, and how you define what is 
considered training related to the job, they end up when someone 
makes a training request — and primarily these are women^ttiey 
end up denying the request because they will say ''that is not relat- 
ed to your job because you are a secretary.'** 

And so I think that that's a very critical area, because they say 
Women don't want training, they won't take it. Anybody who is a 
clerjical, who wishes to get education, doesn't want 'to take another 
shorthand course, and that's a fact. 

• ^» 




ERIC 



We believe that these are several areas in whicht the Federal 
classification system, and personnel system^ is continuing to hold 
women in lower payi^ig jobs. We do heliev(» that these barrierB can 
be eliminated. Job classification standards can be redrawn to re- 
flect the proper skill, effort, and responsibility. Bridges can be pro- 
vided for the jump f rom clerical to technical and professional. 

Finally, the expansioj of training regulations will do much to up-> 
grade the Federal worKing women. We urge you to adopt the rec- 
ommendations set forth in the testimony of* President Blaylock, 
anci to uphold and enforce the principles of equal pay for work of 
comparable value as set forth in the purpose of the 1!)7S C'ivil Serv- 
ice Reform Act. j 

And thank you. 

Ms. Oakak. Thank you, Barbara, and Ken. You have gi^en very 
excellent example's of the types of discrimination that exist. That's 
why we think the Federal (Jovernmeni should serve as the bench- 
mark for the country in the manner in which it relates to its em- 
ployees. Federal employees already are 21 percent behind the pri- 
vate sector. So discrimination just makes it worse. 

The Chair has said many times that this is not a confrontation 
between men and women. We do not^want to see any salaries of 
men lowered. Yesterday in Dr. Devine's testimony he indicated 
that he believed that much of the wage gapMn the Federal Govern- 
ment was due to the overclassif'ication of male positions, P suppose 
that s an attempt to rnake it a male^'emale confrontation. 

Do you think that's corre^^t? * 

Mr. Blayloc k. |Mo, J don't think it's that the jobs are overclassi- 
fied. You're talking about a compojisation system, and basically 
what has happened, both in the standard's for the classification 
system, as well as the process for determining pay, the Comparabil- 
ity Act, we are simply transplanting discriminations that exist in 
the private sector into the Federal seetor. 

And there has been a real effort, as you well know, the compara- 
bility process has been totally aborted. We do not have comparabil- 
ity itj the Federal sector anymore with the pay caps and the artifi- 
cial injections that's going into .that. j 

The next area that you can' best reduce cpst of Government, 
when you're trying to take it off of the hides of the workers, is to 
move into the classification system, and there has been continuous 
action, and increased activity-by this administration to reduce the 
grades of all these standards. 

Now, they run* a survey of less 'than 400 positions. Out of the 2V2 
million positions we have in the Federal Government they did a 
survey of less than 400, and come up with these figures that only 
\\ percent were^undergraded, and tnat like 78 or (58 percent were 
overgraded. And there's nothing/iri^tistical about that. 

You're riot only dealing, I thimc, with the system and the auto- 
matic barriers that had been built into the System, you're deali^ 
with a* philosophy and an^^ttitude, just like the activities going on 
wHh EEOC. y 

As you well know, when that agency was established we hadJT 
Republican administration in power at that time, and they di^^mot 
want that agency. They've never wanted that agency lookiHfg over 
the shoulders of the corporate- structure, or over the ah^lders of 



212 



the rest of Government in that particular area. And there has been 
a cdntinued effort to torpedo that agehcy's ability to perform . 

We simply say to the CongVes's ''its time you built enough stand-' 
*ards into the law t^at they can't help but perfornX" And it's time 
that if Congress will build the standards into the law, and we'll 
damn sure fight for that, and just give us^access to the courts. If 
the Federal Government won't enforce it give us access to the 
courts on behalf of the employees. And it's a long drawnVout proc- 
ess, and a costly process, but we'll jenforce it. 

Ms, Oakar. Well, I think you present a very important challenge 
to us. Let's hbpe we can someday fulfill that challenge. I think 
that's what the spirit of the legislation i^ all about. 
. Thank you very much for appearing. 

Ms. HuTtfHiNSON. Thank you. - . ' 

Mr. Blaylock.' Thank you. 

Ms. Oakar. I'm very, verygrateful. 

Our next witness is ^oing to be Mr. Moe Biller, who is the i^reft- 
dent of the American Postai Workers Union, accompanied by Ms. 
Josie McMillian, the president of APWU's local in New York City, 
a city that has been in the headlines recently. 

WeVe very pleased to have botji of you here. Moe, we know you 
won a historic case yest^day in the courts, on another issue that 
' relates to everyone's democratic right to vote. We're very delighted 
with that decision. 

We want to welcome you, and Josie, here today. Thank you very 
much for being here. ^ 

STATEMENT OF MOE BILLER, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN POSTAL 
WORKERS UNION AFL-CIO, ACCOMPANIED BY JOSIE McMIL- 

LIAN, PRESIDENT, NEW YORK METRO AREA POSTAL UNION 

/• 

Mr. Biller. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and we are de- 
lighted to be here, and thank you for your kind comments concern- 
- ing thie restraining order on voter registration. 

I just want you to know. Madam Chair, I'm delighted to testify 
today on behalf of the Aqjerican Postal Workers Union AFL-CIO, 
and to introduce Ms. Josie McMillian, the president of our 20,000 
' member New York Metro Local, and a leader for women's rights 

* within the Postal Service. 

Women comprise one-third of the workers repi^ssented by the 
APWU. Our union has a fundamental interest in promoting pay 
equity within the Federal and Postal 'Service, and ultimately for all 

♦ public and private gector employees. « 

Madam Chair, your efforts as .an advocate for women's eoonomic 
independence are most commendable. Your leadership in the Con- 
gress to' promote economic opportunity for working women and fi- 
nancial security for older women, and women who work in the 
home, has been consistent and forceful. You are indeed a bright 
light for working women whose interests have been overshadowed 
by the antifeminist attitude within the Reagan administration: 

APWU fully supports your legislative efforts to address these 
issues by introducing H.R. 5092, and H.R. 4599, 

I also express my appreciation to the very fine Congresswomen 
who you mentioned in your statement yesterday, Congresswoman 





2V.\ 

Pat Schr()od(M\ and CbnKresswoma'n (iorry Keriaro IVom my own 
community. \ 

By the way, it is tlfft^ city that neveV sl<^epH;^iis v()U know. 

I noie in your statement, Madam C\vd\\\ towap^he^wdr 

Ms, Oakak. Mr. IVesident, you just Temeniber weit\boi-n in 
Cleveland. - *^ 

Mr^liii.KKK. Yes, well, 1 was conceived thercyYou know that. 
[Laughter.] 

In any event, I note in your statement ybu s^y that the President 
declined your invitation, and Justice and Labor refused to send 
witnesses. \ • ' 

i)M then^you add, sad as it is t(f say, ^eir silence is illustrative 
ol tne inatfention that this administration has given to an issue 
that alTects every woman in this country. 

And I would like, most respectfully, to quote from Dante's Infer- 
i no for those who do remain silent, "that, the hottest places ih hell 
are reserved for those who remain silent during a moral" crisis." 
And I don't choose to share that podium. 

APWU has been in the forefront of previous^llghts on behalf of 
working women. Since the Postal iReorganizat ion Act of we 
have pushed strongly for affirmative action, training, and upward 
mobility for female and minority employees. The results of our ef- 
forts» we believe, are impressive. 

Not only are the major Postal Service crafts well integrated by 
sex and by race, but the wage gap, so apparent in every other in- 
dustry, and throughout the public sector,]is virtually nonexistent in 
the [Vstal Service. In fact, we caffTarguej that to look at the l^staP 
Service workforce integration and comparable wage rates between 
men and women is to look at pay equity at work. And I suspect 
that the collective-bargaining system has iji good share in that. 

In most publi^and private employment^ workforce segragation is 
still rampant. In the P'ederal Government'(excluding postal) for ex- 
ample, over Hf) percent of the clerical jobs are held by 
.while women hold fewer than 20 percent jobs in the technical, 
admini.sjtrative and professional categories. Even within specific oc- 
cupational series, women are still concentrated in traditional 
lemale^()bs. Wome<^i over 95 percent of publioheaKh nurses, 85 
percent^of library technicians and over 90 percent of personnel 
clt^rkscThese are just a few example/ of jobs in the Federal sector 
which h?ivfc^ always been viewed as women s jobs and thus, have 
always be(^ undervalued in the general marketplace. 
*'As yoi>know, by |pblic law, the Federal Government's general . 
schedule wages basically reflect wages for comparable jobs in pri- 
vate industry. The Government's system, therefore, incorporates 
market based wage discrimination into its classification system. 
This concentration of women into the-^Jower paying traditional 
female jobs is largely responsible for the wage gap between men 
and women. Women do slightly better in the Federal sector than in 
r^ate industry, but on tfie average still only earn two thirds of 
the wages of their male counterparts. 

The difference' within the Postal Service is illuminating. The 
postal service, which is well integrated, is the only major industry 
where there is no wage gap between men and women or whites and 
blacks. » 



ERIC 



A study by Joel Popkin and I^irtin Asher, that is footnoted ap- 
pro|)riately/compares wa^cs in the Postal Service with 12 major in-^ 
dustries. This study, which 1 will submit sfiows that: 

P'irst white mafe postal workers are [)aid co^uparable wa^es to 
v^te males in other/industries. ^ . ' ' 

fa^cond females ar/d blacks thV Postal Service arc^ paid higher 
w^es than similarly .situated femaU^ and black workers in<pther 
vindustries. ' * ' ; \ 

Third the Postal Service pays comparable wa^ei^ for each skill 
level regardless of sex or race. 

Fourth the Postal Service i^t^ only industry studied where 
there are not statistically si^ni^mt. wa^e diff(Tentials bcH^ween ' 
blacks and whites, and m'en ynJ^omen. In evfirv other iiVdustry 
women and bki^^ks artj- paid luss.xhai^.vvhite. l'ux...c:^0)parabje 

work. * . ^ . 

Because the ^^)stal S(Tvic(» does not follow the discriminatory 
wa^e practices so evident in the marketplace, it can. indeed, be; 
used as a model for pay equity. And V[\ point out some concerns in 
a f(*w moments. 

Popkin also [)oints to the positive impact of ujiionization on pay 
equitv. He suggests that a high degree of unionization in an indus- 
try may lead to the development of a formal industrywide scale. 
SLy,*h a scale may have the added feature of reducing wage difl^T- 
ences among men and womeni/and whites and blacks. 

It i« clear.Nin fact, that much of th(^ vi^Ci\n{ movement fov pay 
(^(luity hJs come about at the insistence of unions during collective 
bargaining mc^gotiations. v 

We don't mean to imply that all is perfect within the labor move- 
ment, or within the Postal Service. Most of the gains by women 
and minorities have taken place over the last decade. Because of 
seniority protractions, the statistics are less favorable in the super- 
visory level. It will take the aggressive enforcement of affirmative 
action programs for women and minorities to fully integrate the 
management are^a. . * 

Madam ('hair, our current President tries to speak to the co^n- 
cerns of working women^ but his actioiTs. or more [)ointedly the m- 
actions of his administration, speak a louder message. Affirmative 
action and pay equity are opposed at the highest levels of the exec- 
utive branch. Therefore, it is imperative, now iTiore than ever, for 
the legislative branch of Government to step in and to take asser- 
tive action. ^ ^ 

And before I go further, I just w-^r^ to express a concern based 
on a very significant and important fllt^eting yesterday of Boai'd of 
<;overnors of the U.S. Postah Service, who have come up with four 
points. * 

And point No. Z says ihixi the benefits to labor exceed compara- 
ble benefits in private sectors. And they want the negotiators for 
the Postal Service to seek correction of this situation. 

First and foremost I'm Aoing to see whether or not this has any 
basis for {\}/\v labor^ charges. But a greater concern, is that after 
years of struggle and collective bargaining, women and minorities 
seem to have reached some comparability and now administration 
appointees want to push t^at down. And that's what they're obvi- 
ously directing to their negotiators w^H in advance. 



215 



You may note, and I don't want to get into the collective bargain- 
. ing process, until now its been relatively quiet, unlike past years, 
because there has been no rhetoric by the Postmaster General. I 
want to commend them for it. 
, ^^But now his bosses— the Board of Governors of the Postal Serv- 
ice—have decreed on their own in advance that this should not 
» continue to be a fact. ' 
c So I have to raise yery, very strongly tha question of their atti- 
tude both to women and minorities. In fact, there are efforts now 
to downgrade positions based on the advent of mechanization. I am 
concerned that in an industry where pay equity has been achieved, « 
or close to it, that, again, there are efforts to remove that. So our 
.struggle really continues. 
^ If I may, I would now like to turn 

Ms. Dakar. Could I just stop and ask you one question about 
tnat? 

. Mr. BiLLER. Sure. 

^ * Ms. Dakar. Is that somewhat unprecedented that the Board of 

Governors-would make th^t kind of a recommendation? ^ 

Mr. BiLLER. TO my knowledge, it is, Madam Chair. As a matter of 
fact, in the past they have been quiet. It has been echoed and 
, stated that theyVe going to take a more activ6.,voice^in whatever 
the negotiations are. I suspect technically that they have a right to. 
They are the Board of Goyernors. But if they're going to negotiate, 
I suspect they have a right to set^e parameters. I don't know. 

But certainly at this point, it becomes an interference in a collec- 
tive bargaining system, which is important to us in the very 
narrow sense. But what is far more significant is the fact that in 
an hrea where we believe we have at least achieved some measure 
of appropriate equality, now the battle goes on to remove that. 
How can these people claim a sensitivity to this? 

.|r I vyill pick up with my prepared statement. 

The U.S. Government must take an active role to promote pay 
equity initiatives as a tool to end sex discrimination. It is a shame 
that the Reagan administration has chosen to oppose this issue in 
the courts and in the executive branch?? We are told by the Assist- 
ant Attorney General at the Department of Justice, William Brad- 
ford Reynolds, that the Justice Departrpent opposes the landmark 
legal victories for pay equity (Gunther versus County- of Washing- 
ton, and AFSCME versus State of Washington) and will act to over- 
turn them. It is interesting^to note that President Reagan does not 

• share the view of the courts that sexbased wage discrimination is 

no less illegal than wage discrimination based on race, national 
origin, or religion. 

^vThe current Chair of the EEOC has stated that the EEOG is 
unabje to investigate wage discrimination charges because the 
agency has not yet developed a ''policy'' on the subject. 

The Nat ional Committee on Pay Equity concluded* after review- ^ 
ing the evidence, that the EEOC s litigation of wage discrimination 
cases during the Reagan administration is nonexistent. There is no 
organized effort to identify and bring wage discrimination cases; 
there is no litigation strategy and no one identified in charge of 
any centralized program. There appears to be a pattern of whole- 
n sale dismissal for no cauqe of wage discrimination charges in the 

ER?C ' ' 21 j 



^ 2\{) * 

field; and evcMi when chargevS are forwiirded to headquarters^ there 
is no action taken. * 

P'urthermore, the Director of 0PM has indicated that the Feder- 
al Government's job classification ijj/stem has never been studied 
for sex bias. Yet OPM applauds its own system ak a fair. aFbeit 
judgmental, job evaluation tool. AFWU feels that the evidence of 
wage (jTscrimination within the Federal Government demands that 
' such a study for sex bias be done. 

Two initiatives on pay equity require immediate attention. First, 
with regard to the P'ederal sector, there should be a r'eview of the 
entire position classification systehn for sex bias with recommenda- 
tions for implementing changes to eliminate wage discrimination 
^ractices\ Such a plan is embodied in FI.R^/15i)i), the Federal Em- 
ployees Pay Equity Act of li)i^4. APWU fully^ supports the intent of 
this legislation and will eagerly supportHJie bill with one modifica- 
tion. OPM should not be directed to unilaterally conduct a study of 
its own system and make recommendati6ns for changes. For any 
study and subsequent recommendations to have the. sypport and 
trust of the workers it will effect, it must have the active participa- 
tion of those workers in the process, and it must be carried out by 
an unbiased organization. APWU recommends that the^study be 
twofold. The first phase would seek to define the problems, set the 
standards and requirements of the study. Through their unions and 
other employee organizations, workers should have steady if put to 
this process. Then, once the parameters of the study are deter- 
mined, the committee or the Congressional Research Service 
should work with an independent job evaluation firm to carry out 
the study. Periodic reports should be made to employee representa- 
tives and congressional oversight committees. Employee groups 
should also be involved in the acceptance of recommendations for 
changes. Madam Chair, we hope our your committee will gi^ full 
consideration to this recommendation. 

The second major initiative nmust come from the EEOC, DOL, 
and other agencies in enforcing existing wage discrimination laws. 
We strongly support H.R. r)()<)2, the Pay Equity Act of 1984,. which 
addresses this fssue. Since the EEOC has ignored its obligation to 
pursue enforcement of antiwage discrimination laws and has even 
ignored its own interim guidelines to accomplish this, strict report- 
ing requirements and congressional oversight are obviously needed. 

With regard to the Federal Government classification study (Sec- 
tion H), we would make the same recommendation as before, requir- 
ing union participation in the process. 

Madam Chair, APWU is proijd to say that the unionized Postal 
Service does not suffer the same sex-based wage discrimination, so 
evident in other public and private sector organizations. However, 
the problem of discrimination wherever it exists, will be actively 
pursued by our organization. It is in this spirit of*collective advoca- 
cy, that APWU offers its full support and congratulations to you 
for your leadership on pay equity. Thank you very much for invit- 
ing us to testify. We look forward to working with you on this im- 
portant legislation. 

And, if I may, Td like to turn now to Ms. McMillian for specific 
comments on the legislation. Ms. McMillian is also a leader in 
CLUW, the Coalition of Labor Union Women, and Tm proud to saj^ 



217 



a very significant leader in the labor movement, and also a leader 
in POWER, which is Post Office Women for Kqual Rights in our 
ion, 

s. OaKai^ It's a pleasure to have you here, 
r. BiLKKR. Thank you very much. 

s. McMiMjAN. Thank you, Mr. Biller and Madam Chairman. 
This is of great importance to our members. 

As you know, we have antidiscrimination laws on the books of 
this country. What we don't have is any positiv.e action on the part 
^f the Reagan administration, whose, job it is to enforce these very 
laws. . ; . 

For instance, we are told by the Assistant Attorney General that 
the Justice Department opposes the landmark legal victories for 
pay equity, and will act to overturn them. President Reagan and 
this administration do not share the views of the court that sex- 
based wage discrimination is illegal. 

The current Chair of the EEOC has 'stated that his staff is unable 
to investigate wage discrimination charges, because the agency has 
not yet 'developed a policy on the subject. The National Commission 
on Pay Equity concluded, after reviewing the evidence, that the 
EEOC's litigation of wage discrimination cases during the Reagan 
administration is nonexistent. 

There is no organized effort to identify ani bring wage discrimi- 
nation cases. There is no litigation strategy, and no one even iden- 
tified as being in charge of any centralized program. There appears 
to be a pattern of wholesale dismissal. For no cause of wage dis- 
crimination charges in the field. And, even when charges are for- 
warded to the headquarters, thereis no action taken. 

Furthermore, the Director of 0PM has indicated that the Feder-, 
al Government's job classification system has never been studied 
for sex bias. Yet, 0PM applauds its own system as a fair job eval- 
uation tool. 

The American Postal Workers Union believes that the evidence 
of wage discrimination \¥ithin the Federal Government demands 
that a study be undertaken to specifically identify the- sex bias iji 
Federal employment. ^ 

Two initiatives on pay equity require immediate attention. First, 
with regard to the Federal sector, there should be a review of the 
entiror position classification system for sex bias, with a recommen- 
dation for implementing changes to eliminate wage discrimination 
practices. Such a plan is incorporated in H.R. 4599, the Federal 
Employee s Pay Equity Act of 1984. APWU fully supports the 
intent of this legislation, and will eagerly suppor.t^the bill, with one 
modification. 0PM should not be directed to unilaterally conduct a 
study of its own system and make recommendations for changes. 
For any study witn subsequent recommendations to have the sup- 
port and trust of the workers».it will effect, it must have the active 
participation of those workers in the process. And, it must be car- 
ried out by an unbiased orgartization. 

APWU recommends that the sludy be twofold. The first phase 
would seek to define the problem, set the standards and require- 
nients of the study. Through their unions and other employee orga- 
nizations, workers should have steady input into this process. 



218 

' Then, once the parameters o^iie study are determined, it should 
be contracted out by the commitWij, or the Congressional Research 
Service, to an independent job evaluation firm which would report 
periodically to OPM, employee representatives, and congressional 
oversight committees. Employee groups should also be involved in 
the acceptance and recommendations for changes. 

Madam ('hair, we hope your commiUt*^ will give full consider- 
ation tojhis recommendation. The second major initiative must 
come from the EEOC, the Department of Labor, and other agen- 
cies, in enforcing existing wage discrimination laws. We strongly 
•support H.R. 5092, the Pay Equity Act of li)S4, which addresses 
this issue. ^ , / * 

Since the EEOC' has ignored its obligation to pui*sue enforcement 
of antiwage discrimination laws, and has evert ignored its own in- 
terim guidelines, strict reporting requirements and congressional 
oversight are obviously needed. 

With ref^ard to the Federal Government classification study, sec- 
tion wed make the same recommendation as before; requiring 
union participation in the process. 

, Madam Chair, APW is prowd^o say that the unionized Postal 
Service does not suffer the same sex-based wage discrimination so 
evident in other public and private sector organizations. However, 
the problem of discrimination, wherever it exists, will be actively 
pursued by our organization. It is in this spirit of collective advoca- 
cy that APW offers its full support and congratulations to you for 
your leadership on pay equity. 

Thank you ve^ mucrh for inviting me to testify. We look forward 
to working with you on this important legislation. * 

Ms. Oakar. Well, I want to thank you very much for your very 
fine testimony and your Readership, not only in your own union, 
but in the CLUW and other organizations. 

Let me ask', since you do serve as a kind of model, you've men- 
tioned there are some problems regarding pay equity in the Postal 
Service but that, overall, there is not the inequity that there is in 
other areas of the Federal work force. Do you attribute' this to the 
fact that you do have a degree of collective bargaining? Do you 
think that s one of the areas? 

Mr. BiLLER. I attribute this to collective bargginjog, ^ind our con-'* 
certed efforts in the area of affirmative action.' Affirmative action 
can have many., directions, and particularly during the collective 
bargaining "process. 

You will note, also, the table you have that was issued way back 
in 1980 by OPM. You will find in headquarters^postal headquar- 
ters, which is not a collective bargaining group — quite a difference 
in the salaries of the average female compared to the other em- 
ployees. It goes down to about a 25-percent differential. 

Ms. Oakar. We've heard it argued that phy equity remedies - 
interfere with the free market. And to correct the problem will 
create economic chaos, because the cost is so high. 

Since the Postal Service has already created a fairly equitable 
pay system, has it caused economic hardship to the system? 

Mr. BiLLER. Vm glad you asked that question, because it's inter- 
esting. Under the old system, the Postal Service could never be in ^ 
the black. Now, according to the Postmaster Generals report, the 



V; 



219 

Postal Service is SHKi million in the black this past year. Three out 
of the last ^ years have been in tho black, and at the very time 
when they have achievej^pay equity. Because they've got to under- 
stand that when people are paid appropriately, there are returns. 

As you well know, we also have the highest productivity, not 
only in this Postal Service, but all other postal services in the 
world. As a matter of fact, our productivity has probably been 
higher than that in the private sector, which has been looking so 
admiredly at the Japanese. Japanese postal workers are the 
second. And they're probably 80 percent or 25 percent behind us in 
^productivity. 

So that absolutely, certainly in this industry, probably the larg- 
est in the Nation, other than Defense, the reverse is shown by the 
^ figures. And these are not my figures. They are the figures of the 
Postmaster General of the United Statt^s. 

Ms. Oakar; Well, the Chair would like to thank you both for 
being here. Thank you very much for your leadership. I think your 
point about productivity— when people are paid, fairly, they're 
bound to be more productive and their morale is higher— certainly 
relates to the economy in general. 

Mr. BiM.KR. I would just add one, point. Madam Chair, that the 
last time 0PM issued these statistics was November 1980, And 
again I say, it obviously reflects a great degree of insensitivity by 
this administration, which has been forced to protest kind of too 
much. 

We thank you very much, not only for permitting us to be here, 
but for-your continuing efforts, and your colleagues* efforts as well. 
But, we know that your job is tough. Thank you very much. 

[Mr. Mqe Biller submitted the following answers to written quoB- 
tions:] . - ^ 




220 



Mr. Biller. i\\ your tvstiniony you coint* down (jiiiit* hard on tht' 
Keaj',an Administ. rat ion as beiii^, ant i - t erni n is t <ind antl- 
worker. Do you tee I this adra in is t ra t Ion will ewor attempt to 
view things trom the perspective of federal civilian working 
women? 

A- Madara Chair, if Mr. Reagan's past record over th<> last 3 
years is any indication, the answer, I'm^ afraid, is clear ly-- 
NO. Women in the federal government .have born the brunt of 
yvery administration effort to slash away at pay, benefits 
and jobs. Beirtg lower paid, women suffer most when pay 
raises are insufficient. Being the vast majority of single 
heads of households, women suffer most when health benefits 
are arbitrarily cut. And being last hired, lacking seniority 
and vtjterans's preference, women are first fired. This 
deftnicrely has been the sorry pattern in all the RlF's, 



Q; Mr. Biller, in your prepared remarks you comment on a study 
researched and written by Joel Popkln and Martin Asher. In 
their, study, as you pointed out, they come to startling 
conclusions regarding postal workers. Would you Like to 
comment further on their study? 

A; The Study by Joel Popkln and Martin Asher compared postal 
Service wages with wages In 12 major industries. ' As we 
poin t ed out In our s ta t emen t , the fact which dist ingu ishes 
the Postal Service from all other Industries studied is the 
absence of any significant wage gap between men and women and 
between blacks and whites. Furthermore, other data Indicate 
that although wj^men are still under- represented in the Postal 
Service compared to their general workforce participation, 
they are well Integrated throughout the major crafts. 

It is commendable, indeed, that the Postal Service neither 
segregated Its workforce by initial job "streamlining", nor 
does it blindly follow market rate discrimination against 
wom^ and minorities in pay. This is a real tribute to the 
effectiveness of sound labor-management negotiations. 



Q; In your testimony you speak in glowing terms about the 
success of women In attaining better paying positions In the 
U.S. postal service. Why Is it, in your opinion, women fair 
better in the postal service than in the federal civilian 
workforce? 

A: In the Postal Service, women and men have the distinct 
advantage of s trength through collec tlve bargaining. As you 
know, men and women lack this advantage in the federal 
civilian workforce. Also, affirmative action and upward 
mobility have been promlnant Issues in our negotiations. 

Q: Mr. Biller, In your testimony you describe in detail the 
Equal Employment Opporturt^y Commission* s^^ failure to tnonltor 
and enforce sex based wage dlscrlmlnat ion. Why in your 
opinion has the EEOC shown such reluctance to enforce the law 
against this type of discrimination? 

A: Madam Chair, the EEOC * s reluctance to enforcfe the law against 
8 ex -based wage dlscrlmlnat Ion can only mean one thing- th is 
administration doesn't take such practices very seriously. 
Here we sit, a full 3 years after the landmark Gunther 
decision, and the EEOC Chair . says' they don't yet have a 
'policy" on how to process sex-based wage discrimination 
charges. They have a cose backlog of 266 charges of this 
kind, and lacking any final policy guidelines, field officers 
don't have the foggiest notion hdw to process new charges. 
Is this lack of "policy" or lack of "commitment"? I suggest, 
Madaro Chair, \t Is the latter. 



2^0 



221 

I 

Ms. Oakar. Thank you yery much. Thank you both. We're going 
to recess for about 10 minutes because of a vote. When we com'e 
back, we're going to hear from various organizations, including the 
Nurses' Association and Federally Employed Women, Nine to Five, 
the National Association of Government Employees, and we're 
going to hear from Mrs. Schlafly of the Eagle Forum, and others. 
We'll be right back. 

. [Recess.] ^ 

Ms. Oakar. We are going to ask our next witnesses to come up 
as a panel in the interests of your time, if you don't mind. Unfortu- 
nately, various budgets are being dealt with today on the House 
floor. Dr. Lea Acord, who is the executive administrator of the Illi- 
nois Nurses' Association, speaking on behalf of the American 
Nurses' Association; Ms. Delores Burton, who is. president of the 
Federally Employed Women, and Ms. Cheryl Wainwright, who is 
with Nine to Five. We are pleased to have you here. 

I would like to also ask Ms. Catherine Waelder, who is counsel 
Tor the National Federation of Federal Employees; and Ms. CynthL^ 
Denton,^ who' is the general counsel for the National Association of 
Government Employees, to please come up as well. Thank you very 
much. 

Dr. Acord, ii you want to begin^ the Chair is happy to- have your 
statement that you submitted. You may discuss it in any way that 
is most comfortable. If you feel that you would like to summarize^ 
your statement, it would be helpful because I would like to ask you" 
questions. 

Thank you very much for being here. Dr. Acord. 

STATEMENT OF LEA ACORD, EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR OF IL- 
LINOIS NURSES* ASSOCIATION ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN 
NURSES' ASSOCIATION 

Ms. AcoKi). My name is Lea Aeord, and I am a registered nurse 
and executive administrator of the Illinois Nurses' Association, I 
am appearing on behalf of the 170,000 members of. the American 
Nurses' Association. 

The American Nurses' Association is pleased to have the oppor- 
tunity to present our views on pay equity. And we commend the 
subcommittee for bringing to the public an issue which is crucial to 
the attempts of njillions of working women to achieve pay equity. 

ANA is painfully aware that the higher the concentration of 
women in an occupation, the lower the wage is in relation to the 
occupation's worth. The 1.7 million registered nurses, over 97 per- 
cent of whomoare women, have always suffered from this discrimi- 
nation. 

The American Nurses' Association is committed to achieving pay 
equity for all working women. I would like to discuss two of ANA's 
efforts to combat sex-based wage discrimination. 

The first, a wage discriminatioft charged filed with EEOC in 1977 , 
against the University of Pittsburgh mrgues forceably for better en- 
forcement of the law, \Vhile the second highlights ANA's most 
recent effort to achieve pay equity for nurses and other female em- 
ployees of the State of Illinois. 



erJc ■ 22 0 



222 



JC 



Before joirting the Illinois Nurses* Association, I was on the facul- 
ty of the University of Pittsburgh's School of Nursing. In August 
1977, ANA on behalf of the nursing faculty of the University of 
Pittsburgh filed a sex discrimination charge with EEOC alleging 
that the university discriminated against all women faculty mem- 
bers by paying them loyTer salaries than those paid male faculty, in 
violation of title VII of (the Civil Rights Act. 

In August 1978, which was 1 year later, the-EEO(' issued a sub- 
pena to the university demanding salary and job information re- 
garding faculty members employed in four health professional' 
schools of the university. 

The EEOC claimed, and we agreed, that such information was 
necessary to demonstrate employment practices and patterns of the 
university. It was necessary to get this kind of information from 
other health related professional schools, because the school of 
nursing was 97 percent female. So we had to get information from 
other comparable schooljs. 

The university refused to submit the information claiming that 
salaries could not be compared. And it was argued that each school 
had striking differences in factors influencing salaries which were 
most influenced by the marketplace. 

In 1979, the EEOC applied for an order enforcing Ihe subpena. 
-And irr March 19H0; the district court issued such ^ri order reject- 
ing the university's claim that information concerning the faculty 
of the four schools was not relevant. 

The court of appeals affirmed the district court's decision finding 
that the information requested was relevant. And the issue was re- 
solved by the Supreme Court in October 1981 when it denied 
review of the lower court's decision. 

Since 1981, EEOC has failed to pursue the case. In spite of con- 
tinual correspondence with the EEOC and assurances that the 
matter will be investigated, EEOC has not taken any action since 
the court's decision in 1981. 

Ms. Oakar. I just want you to repeat that. 

Ms. AcoEU). Since October 1981 when the Supreme Court failed to 
review the lower court's decision, in other words upheld the lower 
court's decision, and the university was told to give the information 
to EEOC, E:E0C has not done anything. 

Ms. O.AKAR. So the courts are on your side on this? 

Ms. AcoRi). Yes;' they were on our side in this case. 

Ms. Oakar. And they have not taken any action? 

Ms. AcoRi). No, they have not. Which means that it has been 7 
years since we initially filed the case in 1977, and 8 years since the 
university was told to give the information over. And still thfe 
EP]OC has not done anything about it. 

It is curious to me, tha|lbefore 1981, EEOC seemed to be working 
diligently to get the information from the university. Once the 
court said that the University should give the information over, 
then they stopped. And they decided that they were not going to go 
forward with the case. I am not really sure why, but this was in 
1981. 

Ms. Oakar. I thinkjlhat is important for the record to state, be- 
cause we had the EEOC chairman here earlier. 
Ms. AcoRD. Yes; I was here when he was and heard. 

»~ 22y, 



Ms, Oakak. You would not agree with his attitude about the 
agenc7's /eal, would you? 
Ms, AcoRo, No; I would not. 
Ms, Oakak, OK, thank you. 

Ms, AcoKo, Most recently in a .second case, ANA in conjuRction 
jA^ith the Illinois Nurses' Associa^on filed a charge of discrimina- 
t^n with the EEOC on behalf of nurses and other women employ- 
(pl of the State of Illinois, ^ 

The complaint was filed December 22, VM\, and it charges that 
the State engaged in illegal sex discrinlination against employees 
in female dominated job classifications , on the basis of wages and 
other terms and conditions of employment in violation of title VII 
as well as the Illinois Human Rights Act. ^ 

• The complaint is based on a job classification study conducted by 
Illinois and released in June less than 1 year ago. The study 

focused on 2\ job classifications; \2 were female domintited, and 12 
were male dominated. And each job classification was/given a cer- 
tain number of points based on the evaluation. The more complex 
thejob„the higher riiimber of points assigned to it. 

Here are some examples of the findings of the study. First of all, 
No. 1, the predominantly female classification of nurse W was as- 
signed 415 points fur job complexity. ^The predominantly male 
dominated classification of stationary engineer was assigued 181 



Nevertheless, stationary engineers earned $12,500 more last year 
than did R.N.'s classified as nurse 11 

The second example. There are approximately T)S,000 employees 
in State service in Illinois— 57 percent are women. However, 
women are less than 20 p^cent of those State employees who earn 
more than $26,000 a year, but comprise more than 85 percent of 
those employees who earn less than $16,000 a yea^. 



i^se in Illinois, in the State, 51 percent ar^^rrale dominated, and 18 
percent are female dominated. Which means that 70 percent of all 
classifications are dominated by one sex or the other. " 

The facts of the case are very similar to AFSCME v. State of 
Washington. Like the Washington case, Illinois has conducted its 
own studies which show that female enlployees are underpaid rela- 
tive 'to males holding comparable jobs. And IHinois has failed to 
take steps to remedy the situation. 

As you know, in the Washington case, the judge ruled that Wash- 
ington violated title VII by paying women* in predominantly female 
job classifications less than men in male dominated categories. 

Naw because of ANA s experience with EEOC, abd as I told you, 
ANA filed a sex discrimination charge at Ihe University of Pitts- 
burgh, ANA requested a right to sue, and received alright to sue 
letter from the Department of Justice last month. And ANA will 
file suit this spring. 

It is our belief that the outcome of this case will be ^ery similar 
to the Washington State case. 

I would like to thank you. And if there are any questions, I 
would be happy to answer them. | 

Ms. Oakar. Thank you very much. And we will submit your 
entire statement for the record. 

[The statement of Ms. Acord follows:] 





example. Of 12,000 




currently in 



22/ 



224 



PRIPARU) STATmNT Of L[A ACOKD, P'H.O, P.N. 

The American !Jurses' Association ^^;e national profe ir.ional isijc<~iar ion 
reproHer.r. mq the nation's reqi^stece<i nurses,. We aj:e^lea:»'od " o havj * !.o opr.'.>r in l - 

♦•'J present our viewr, on M,H. W)l , The Pay E.^-ii'^V '"^c" of'l*)B4, and H.H. 
Ti'.e Federal li^nployees Pay F.quity Act of lIB^l. addition, we wowl^i like to dis- 

our recon*: etf jr'-s to a(:hi<?'/f» pay oquit.y. 

J. « 

The Amej'i^an !Iucses' Association L.i painfull.^ awajrc '■hat, •■>.e hiaher ♦"he con- 
'.'er^'-- rat. ion yotnerj^ i-'i an occapar lor. , th'« .lower tl^o waqes ;r. celat icn j the occu- 
^ Ration'*; worth. Re-jistered nursery, over )^ rerrent of whcri are xomen , have always 
"^ffere^ from thi.> disccimt nation. Registered nurses exerirlify rhe pr oh lens women 
face in receivinq equitable -"oinpensac i on for their work. In fact , to a larqe extent, 
reqistored nurses have become a symbol of the persistent inequities uxpeY^ienced by 
wome.'i who work, 

> 

TherQ are over. l.i mllion pt^^j^vinq reqister*»d rvurses for whon the concept 

■)f rav equity' 13 J t :)p rriority. The ,\inGtican Nurses' As^jcj*-; i .i'- lor. u ■.oruni od 'o 

I 

;ichiovinq pay e'pi*^"/ for all wockmq Hc:>nen, and believes that the t i?ne for action 
IS ::ow. The workinq women of- this country can no lonqejr afford to wait to earn an 
equitable waqe while policy makers cont ini;e merely to qive lip jetvi .e to ^he piob- 
I«?m. //(jrkine; W')ncn need t-onrrF^t-o steps taken now to eliminate •■h<> enormous waqe qap 
that oxintT. k>f v^eri men and J^men . 

Title VII of the Civil Riqhts Act of 1964. executive Order 11246. and Title V 
o: *"hie '.'.3. rode all address pay inequities, A major obstacle »:o elimina*:inq dis- 
crimination ari'.J achievinq pay equity at the national level is the lack of adequate 



ERIC -^^Ci 



225 



enforcement of •Lhese statutes that prohti)it waqe .iiscriminat ion '^n *-he basis of sex, 
race, -la-ijnal ori'71;.. ■■■.andi(;ap , or reli,}ion. 7i;:jt \o 4 kn- iwlc lie', "hat. this on- 

jr'.oment r.roblem 1 ^^ mpouiuied i-y ri.e restricrivr* t. :•.^«'^ r : t a^ 1. n A ; :no :f r.heso 
laws ty •'•he federal '.-ourrs. Measures naut ixv taker, to ♦':,.<iuro *:b.a^ t J-c-.^^o aqencies 
resLo:;:; itle for .ipr.^.. Id i nq the laws do so. There m s'lKsta:.*. laj ovi Jer.cje that the 
' *.\5. :;epartnenr :'i'it-ice, '"ff;^.e of ft>df»ral '"c r.t r .i'-" " rnt : i.ir.co ;-r'.qi-un?, Tqual 
mp'i.'j-;'!ne.''.t /ppor'-'iruty 'Tommies ujn , and ihe Office of r"rionf.t,'l .Mlir.a loner.t have fail- 
ed -ij filfill thdir rer,pr)n3ibi lit :»."; . 
M.P. ■I'^.^J'^ ',\MD H.R. ^vr.<2 

Both il.R. -r/"*, TJ;e foderal F^inloyeer. ;>ay '^I'u^.y Ac*- j-' L ♦•^■i arvJ :-:.T'. "1^)2, 
Tho ray "'{uit-v Jf I >^i-1 , addreG:; Vho prcLlum le ; :a* jr-.T.*.':" ,f 

exi'jtinq '.statutes pertairunq t . waqo d i -jc r ini nat i . ?.c»-h LlII^; ■•-r.te.-.d *hat cur- 
rent* laws adequately address -ray o-j'U'y ar.'J th.at addi-i inal 51 at orv lan'^uaqe 
prchibi t ir.q waqe d 1 'jc r t mi na^ 1 )r; a" *-\.ti todo:al :»■•.'«? 1 1:; ;:.:ie':e Li'^ar ■ 

H.R. 4510, The refieral Fmcloyp^s Pay r/i'n'-y Ac*- of n.P. -IS')'! 15 intended 

to-r ronotf.' [.ay equity <ir.d eliiniruite .erta*.". ! i S'ji inii. nator y waqe se'^Vinq practices 
wi-.hin the Tederal >rvil servi-jo. .Th.v^l,i:: re:oqnizcG "hat these i ini nator y 
practi.-es continue to r-.c^ur deopite the fa(:t that federal O'Tual oppor ♦i-jni ty laws 
exist wfujh prohihit such practiiiorj. 1 ^ 

Th.*' .%iK wo'il.i require the Iff.-e jf 'per'5<.nnei :!anaqene.'^.t t-^ ;'.entify and elimi- 
nate discriminatory waqe rjetting practices withi:; the fede/al qover^nment by studying 
•■he jovernnent '1^ 3ob-c I ass i f icat lor; systen and ^".uhnit - : r.q ..a report to ""he President 

and i^onqress which, I) contains findinqn with respect to d isc r ininator^^ wage setting 

i ^ 

practices, 2) identifies appropriate measures for eli;ninating such practices, includ- 
ing proposals relating to the development of equitable job evaluation techniques, and 
J) specifies measures and makes cecommen<iat jons for legislative or -Jther action neces- 
sary to meet the purposes- of the bill. i 

4 



/ 



. . .... 22 J 



226 



r^ie L.1 1 1 wo';M r"equire the Fqual l^tplovment .,p| (ir*,'.ni •■y ' ;rr\ni .s *; i ^r. ' i r:!:'.C ; . tV.c 
>?rdr •"n^ent A ..ah<jr , -iri.i -^.e .Justi^o r;opartn\en»: tio r eport ' . * '-.i.' ?'r^?'j l i*T.t ar.'l 
'•;r.;r"y; ^n^i.cir 4 .♦;■/;'■ a:v the nay o.rui^y ^r«M. T-T '" wv.li l^.- '.o r.;ir«vi ro 
.•jrry -i .or'.t- in^o'i;; jT'xjraxn e<iiJCf»r ion ot\ way; ^ ., ♦.- 1 ;:r. unato ii:: . : i;ni:^at. or y 

!♦.••/«!.){ a rrovi le ':t^^:ni7al ai;sLS*.lnco any enr Uyec bOekinc; help in 

pay .;«;^rit;; r a : 1 1 . s . 

I;'. I* .:; repof. •■ i r p ji'lcrt i;. : '.jnar'-'su , * JX «oul i ies-jr i :.f5 if <i ac- 

Mvinies on r»?nMi:uj [mv o-u':v vha:;<v., vroviiiivj ; :^ r . rr^a* i >n *\:yi ';;nLo i*^ , cases 
file-1. 'ho :o..-a lion 'J of -?:e r j'ai ^h:; f.i '.m! in rn^i jnal -.5:1 c s , ^ ho »yr*? - -xl leqations 
filtMl, ri'imter f t.-ases rr')'_»>r.r.u i , »'-.o if?- 1;; i jr.s na!e Mvjre-.* *. .» -J-ar-jes, and 

♦•he r.iunber ^vii a'.t^ions ^hich ^ ho :omin:i,;ion ias filovi ■. -^rico; nin^] -.age :ii5crimi- 
:-.at.Lon, - * 

:n -i'ltiiMot.. *he Y.Z'-r w.;ii 1 ! --nd-.K- ^ ,rjtjy f r-A, r*^'i»:ta: ;';vor:in<?-t 'fi r ay 
i* ructire . an^i rtif^or*: ro';oinnen(la^ ions tor chanqo to i.ot h Jjj.'^ru^;:; aful r.he 'Office 

o£ reruijr:;;*'! >tana;Gmuf;t . oirrti'.ar ropct-n wr.uM i;f» filoj Vy ♦he Denar'-TTiOMr of Labor, 
r^iqarflmq *.he enf orctimon'- -jt FJxecutivo jr'lor 112'U. w:uc':'. firoh.ibits wage -1 1 scr ini nat ion 

"*!']fral ':on'-«'A':rorr. , ancj by "^he Jisr ice rjorartmor.*. , r*!aar'1inc i s efJ^rg in on- 
f'-jT'-im rrer.etit pay equity lawn, 
ANA •HECOM.Mr?JOATI^;NS 

While tx;>rh bills have' idtfui-ified the p r obi pn a*- * he Im*-. lor^'a 1 level as one of 

inadequato enfor-ement- ^f~*exisf- inq laws, we have ■-or.corns about whether, under cur- 

:or.t :ir ■•unstar.'.es, -hese billj ar*^ >uffi ipnt '»nsiio *h.a»^ f»r:f or':enf?n* , ""he Office 

of Personnel Management anM ff(X.- have been unwilliruj ty enfoEoc lawr> prohi»jiting wage 

\ ■ • 




ERIC 2jU ^ 



227 



discrimination. We are skeptical that reports or investiqations conductl^id by any 
*of the federal agencies under this admiAist. ration woult'. reflo'.t a ni<.;t" e\;liqhtened 

) 

viewpoint or brinq about qreat-er commi Mnen c fo e 1 imma t ir.q wa^e J ii^ci ;nij/iat ion than 
those aqon<^es have rhus fa^ domonst rated. 

Regarding H.R. specifically, we believe that it is unlikely that the 

Office of Personnel Management is*capablo of conducting an unbiased* study of the 
federal civil service ;ob class i fncat ion . V/e do not believe that an employer can 
• .L^jectively assess itself as •'o (iiscriminatory or otherwise unfair emp^-oyment prac- 
^ tices. We strongly recommend that any smuV/ --pr.'ii.'cted of the federal ]overnmen.t be 
V inderf.akerT by an independent consultant wir :; an ;jp[ oi vr ity f.^t Mio input and jver- 
siqfit by employer representatives. 

In addition, wir:h respect to M.P. 4^00, we are ccncernel that th*; present lan- 
• guage of the bif I is too restrictrive rtrhaps ev^ inore restrictive that tlie 
Equal Pay Act. Sec. presently .ie fines discriminatory wage getting practices 

s 

as covering only those jobs re^iuiring comparable education, r raining, skiUsQex- 
perience. cftorr, responsibility and working ;onditions.' The re':nirenenr. of ;ob 
comparability does not address the pr'3bl|:m for wqr;ier. wirkLr.'j in rre'^uiniMant ly female ^ 

^ uc'jupar ions . Since tJie vast majority of work ir.ff women ar*? pmployed in sexually segre- 
gare<i obs, there is no "comparable rompar isons . " ror example, college prepared re- 
gisrer^ll^nurses working in hospitals conM be ;.',npared wit.h truck iriverr, working 

; in highways '->ince none of the factors identified in the bill are likely ^o be cora- 
[arable in •rhose two jobs. Moreover, ^his language alsn encourages a narrow factor 
by factor comparison of their worth as a whole, rather than examining a composite of 
these factdrs. 

we strongly rcconmend the following language: 



■) ■■dis;..rimina''ory wage-setting p rat; ices" r:iear-.s *\\q se'-'-ir/j of 
wage rates pai<i for ]obs h.eld pre'i()ml:la^^ Iv rona:e w^^rkers 



ERIC . 



t 



.228 



lower than those paid for jobs held predominant ly W male * ^ 

workers, although the work performed ty the female wor.kers 
IS of at least comparable value in the overall composite 
skill, effort, responsibility and workinq conditions required. 
In addition, the definition of. equitable job-ev^luat ion technique should spe- 
cifically exclude market waqe rates as a component. Although market waqe rates are 
.♦ommonly incorporated into j6b evaluation plans, they have beerf shown to reflect 
jex bias, when an employer sayr, rhat he is paying his female employees accorJing 
.to the "qoing wage rate" in the female labor market, he is actually engaging in sex- 
based 'li,>cr imip.aft ion. Tor rhis narket^ itself, ir, J.epresse<i- by dipcr immatcry , 
S'jcietal notrionr* thaf a -woman's work i >f le?i5 value to working Aa erica than is 
";;er mdl»j ccjunterpart ' s . 

We also question whether the Mil i ntent lonA 1 ly omi ts , as prol.ibif^d -romponents 
r-jr 'iotonnining the comparable value of d ;ob. those reflecting religion, age and .. 
handicap. We recfjmmend •'he following language: 

1*^.1 "equitable job-evoluar ion technique" :;ieans a 'ob-evaluat ion 

technique which, to the Tiaximum extent feasible, Joes not in- 
elide componentn for de'"ernir.lng tho 'omparable value of -3 ;'')b 
that reflect ^he sex . . • '*>f enrloyee , .r Mie marke- wa-.o * 

rate ?or such lob. 

With- re-ipec- *■ o M.R. '30'}2 , we rccomnend specific reCeronce *■ c Mvi narketplace 
as a soujfce of discrimination, for those who wo'ild argue that fhe nar kc*- pi ace is ' , 
neutral rather thaj^' inherently sex-biased and is therefore a proper basis fc^r waqe- 
♦ief-i.'jg, -For example: 

SLCTI'JN 1 (L) iZ) . Promoting \hc establ inl-.ment '^f wage rat >s or o»-her 
pay scales and job class if ications wh.i :h are based 




229 



^ * upon the worth of the work perfonnod rather than 

the sex ... of the enployef, )r of market wa<je * 

rates, ♦ 

EFFORTS TO COMBAT SEX-BASED WAGE DISCRIMINATION 

ANA IS well acquainted with the frustration associated with cjovernment arjency 

failure to pursue charges of discrimination. In August 1077 , -rhe Anerican Nurses' 

Association, on behalf of oiembers of the faculty at the School of riursmq at the 

j'nivorsit/ of Pittsburgh, filed a sex l^acr immat ion charqe alleging that the 

University discri.Tiinated against women faculty members at the School of Nursing by 

g ( 

paying -.hen lower salaries -han t?.ose r.aid male faculty ir. )ther ;,chools^ All but 
one of the nursing school faculty were female. The char-^J^was filed on behalf 6f 
20- fill tyne faculty members ^f the Jniver s i ty • s School of Nursing, ANA alleged 
that the iiscriniihat ion was. an violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. " 
^ ' on August 1, l'J3H, (She EECC issued a subpoena to the University demanding the 
sex, date of hire, date of ter:nination , academic degree, tenure/non-tenure stSus, 
^posi-.ione h^ld, initia; and present salaries, functional ;oL d 'r.c r ipt ion , and "job 
T';aUf Lcationr, jf every fill tinie and par*- time Assistant rnstructor, Instructor, 
Assistant Professor, Aiisoc:ate Professor and Professor eninloyed m four separate 



and distinct pr'jfeyisicnal sch.ools ^f 



he ■■niversity: Nursing, Social v/ork. Health 



Related Prof^r.sions and Phannacy. The V.E'y- clair.ed ^hat salaries and ]^b information 
of faculty members other than m the School of Nursing would demonstrate the empioy- 
ntont practices and patterns of the '.diversity, and wouM support the -har^e oi dis- 
crimination if women instructors and professors performins similar duties are paid 
lower salaries than male instructors an<i professors. 

The Vniversity refused tc submit the information rerpared Ly EECC, claiming that 
the information >;a>. hiahly 3e::sitive and confidential, and •:ho salaries could not be 
ccmparcd be.MuMo -.f -he vast difference-, botwpen fac^l-y nntnb<?r:: t:p,ichinq different 
disciplines in diff*?rent schools. The lieans of the four schools testified that the 



ERLC 



23j 



230 



comparisons soucjht: to be made by the EEOC could not be made and^^ould not be., rele- 
vant t.o Nursing School -salaries. It was arqucd rhat each School had striking differ- 
ences m *-.he tactuVs int' luencinq faculty salaries, duties, and re^f ons i hi 1 1 1 ies , and, ^ 
most iraportantly, salaries of faculty members were influenced by the marketplace - 
e.;., the School of PhArnacy had to offer a salary high enough, to at t r ac t • prof ess ion- 
als to tHe 5f;hool a.s m alternative to working as a private practicing pharmacist.^ 
[n M^embeA 1)" ), -he F:noC applied to the Oi^trict Court for an order enforcing 
the svib-fiMna, Mar'jh l^QV, t he Di 3t c i.cr •."ouift issu<?d an order enfcrcing tlie sub- 

poer.a. The court rejected the 'University's claim that information concerning the 
rac'ilcy of the four pr'jf etibional school j was not relevant to the EECC investigat i,on 
of rhe liex discrimination charge filed on behalf of the f.emalo members of the nursing 
faculty, not^jmg that the very language ot tlje 'tharge showed that the charge is not 
restricted to the School of h'ursing, but itn dimensions are "n ivers ity-wide . Further, 
the court found that, "the entire faculty of the School of !Iursing is female and in- 



; . 

fichool I may 



formation beyond- (that r,choolI may be crucial to the EEOC' s determination of probable 
:au3e." The '"ourt of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision finding that the 
inforination required by the subpoena Jas relevant to the charge under investigation. 
The issue was resolved by the Supreme Court in October 1?B1, when it denie<^ review of 
'he "niversity of Pittsburgh's petition ^o overturn the lower .'hurt's dpcision. 

After this decision, the EZCC assigned an investigator to this matter. Thus 
far, however, EEOC has failed to pursue the case. In spite of continual correspondence 
with*the ZEOC and as3urancer> that the . matter will be investigated, ZLCC has not taken 
any action since ^he Court's decision in 1081 to resolve this matter. 

We believe that this instance is a good example of the treatment of wage dis- 
crimination cases by EEOC, and argues forcefully for better enforcement of the law, 
not only by the EEOC, but by all federal agencies in order to ultimately achieve pay 
equity. * A * ' 

/ 



ERIC 



234 



231 



PAY -.C 



y.OHt receritly. AMA, ui ..on junct ion with rhe Illinois N-arrie*' Association, fiieil 
4 .f •i:.S'~riGjindtio:i v>tJ; tj;e ^.T.or on Lefialf ruirijes an<i othur womon djl^loyGes 

of the state'of rilmoisi. 

The '.-jmr-laint , filed Dec ember I'Hu, at ^he V.ZCC -listrict office iny^caqo, 

uharies that rhe State iJ eriqaqe-.i m illecMl ;gx iirici immati.on against t-mployees i.n 
female 'loininar(j^. -joh ; ld:;sit ical ions' on ^l-.e ijayi;; >f waqes anfl otJ-.er torns and con- 
•litions of <.-niplo'/nier,t . Sue*. ■] i acr immat io:i is it\ violation of "'it It? VIT of the 
Civxl Riqhts Act of l')hA , as well as the Illinois iUiman ?j.qhts Act, Th.fe State under- 
conpensat-es nhe female-domir.ated c lass i f icat. icns .^e lat i /o t*? oiale lominated classi-. 
ficatior.s involving equivalent or Ifesser skill, eifort, and responsibility. 

■The State ^ Illinois released a stvidy in June 10B3, which demonstrates that 
it is very expensive to be a woman worker in Illinois State service, and that women 
^ are paid substantially less than men for ]obs of equivalent or lesser mmnlexitv in 
duties and requirements. There are approximately =.8, COO employees in State service, 
of whom'S6% are women. However, as shown by the following chart, women are less thaji 

of -.hose state employees who earn rnore than IZ^^.-CC a year, but more than^^^JS^ of 
those employees who earn less than S16,000 a year. ^ 

TABLE 1 

t 

Distribution of Male and Female Employees in ?:ach Pay Grade 



MALE 
Mumber 



326.000 and above 

522.001 - $26,000 
316,001 - S22,000 
316,000 and below 



4,460 
9,246 
8,982 
2,780 

25,468 



% of 
Sal.afy Group 

81 .08 
64.63 
52.23 



Mum be r 

1,041 
5 ,061 
^,216 
16,673 

30,991 



^ of 
Salary GrOup 

18,92 
35 . 37 
47,77 
85.71 



The State responsible for this massive and iUeqai underpayment of women by 
virtue of its maintenance of a discriminatory job classification system, oc^qupat ional 



232 



lii'^'i ^ns vhi'.a .^re f-r»^iioninar.t I / fwrnale. :f 1.21:1 oc-tMpat i.-i:.al .'lajstis: cutrontly 



.lis) ire :nale'-'.i:ni;-.a-0'i ir.ri :u :•K:J^; are 



femaie -Nomina ted. .Nearly /'"^^ all 30b c lass i f icar. ions are icnmacea by or.e sex 
or the other, with female li occupying a smaller number TOb o lassi f icat if^ns . 

' heavl ly-porulaLe^i State ;ob ; l^s::; 1 f 1 :a t ions 

irate cjnployees >/or< m one of 'r.ese : lassi : i ja t i ;.r. : . :r 3 linos': -S*^ 

ft ^ ■ 

j: ♦ihe t-jtal itate ,'vorkfoL re; . vr.ich are notably iex-se-rer^a'-.ftd --^i.-?. ^ne 

iex or f/ne otJjer . T'^elve :)f the 7 lassif ications chosen were predominant iy female, 

//.'ii!.e 12 v/ere pre'iomi:.an t ly niaio, is follovii: 

T.\aLZ 2 

■ ' M 1 e - ::cmi na ted riaases 

;tal Number 





^ri'-le 




of Employees 




Correctional Officer 


85 . 








Highway Maintainor 


99 . 


I . 


1,666 




:ii:jnway Maint. Equip. "I^er. 






614 


L 


Stationary ^I.nqmeer 






259 




Automotive Mechanic 








- j , 


Secirity Officer I 






Ui 




^lect r ician 






92 


a. 


Veterans Empl . RejJr . I 


97 . 




80 




AccQu.ntar.t V 


38, 




77 




E,3. Local Office Manager I 


d*l . 




65 




0 to re Keeper 11 


3C . 




61 




Financial Inst Examine r ril 


)6. 




;7 




"emaio- Dominated 


Classes 














Total Mumber 




Tit Iff \ 


% Females 


of Employees 




Mental Health Technician II 


82. 


.8 


"2.785 




:i^tK 7-/pLst in 


^B. 


. 5 


1,324 




Public Md caseworker IV 


80. 




1 ,519 




Clerk Typist II 


■?8, 


.S 


:.C70 




l^icensed Practical Nurse II 


}7 , 




624 


6 . 


rJurse rii 


95 , 


, r, 


608 


7 . 


Data tnput Operator 11 


96 


.8 


554 


8. 


secretary I 


99 


■J 


5 38 


0, 


secretary II 


ICG, 




282- 


10. 


Switchboard Operator II 


95, 


.2 


166 


11. 


Accountant I 


80 


.8 


104 


12. 


Nurse IV 


• 97 


.3 


.73 



.ERIC 



o n 



233- 



The "jObs were then rated using ,a^^yTTi«a.y'.known\iethod of ]ob-evA Luat ion developed 

by Jidv Associates, a nat iondlly-prominent manaqununt cunsultincj firm, which considers 

;of <;-jmpicxit'/ in '.eiTis ot' ivjch factors as '^now-how, problem :3olvincj, aeco\intabi 1 1 ty , 
and working conditions. 

;kay estimates that the percentage of •mderpav'TnGnt fo female jobii range from ^'3% 

at 1 .'^ :ob evaluation pamtc; to S6% at job evaluation points. As Table 3 graphi- 

.ally ie:;ion:;trate^> , "ihis costs female workers dearly. » 



Z*^if2C*:*"i ?*^r\aU^ ^ob 
-lassit 1 wat i^ons 

lUirse IV 

■^^urs^^ rri . 

Data Input Cper. 11 
Clerk -Typist . 1 1 



:tay Poir.ta 

4ttC 
US 



.Tur.G I'iOj 
Averaoe Monthly 
oalary 

1 



-eccentac|e 
Vntlornayment 



Annua 1. 
'Jnderpayment 

Cl'1,130 
12,056 
3,522 
3,421 



Ac shown in\TabIj/4, -^men employees are evon more disadvantaged m pay in t4ie 
^ •> 

jn<)re '-cmplex jqbs, because the salary di srar 1 1 ies . ^ire greater. 



Hay t.va lua tio'rt. Po ints 

100 J.E, Points 
500 J.E. Points 



table: '1 



Male Advantage ir, Annual Salary 

CC ,200 
.* 7,152 



In many instances, -jis ;;hoWn by Table,' male- i^)rnina ted jobs with fewer points 
than female jobs m overall complexity earn more t^han those female jobs. 

TABLE 5 



Se lected 

Job Classi f i<:at ions 

Murse IV (F) 
Accountant V (:t} 

■Nurse III (F) 
Stationary Engineer (M) 

Secretary I (D 
Storekeeper 11 (M) 



Hay Frjints 

451 

*" -515 
IQl' 

20 i 
157 



Average Month ly 
Sa'lar^/ 




Annual Male 
Salary Advantage 

$ 4,3'J2 

12,540 

1 ,660 



Eleven registered nurses employed by the State of Illinois, including one male, 
aire joining the American Nurses' Association ' and the Illinois Nurses' Association as 
charging parti4s against the state's <?ex-discriminatory practices. They are members 
of the Illinois Nurses' Association and American Nurses' Association. 

. The facts of this. case are similar to those In <\rSCME v. State of 'Washington , 
*J.3. District Court, Western District of 'Washinaton . ?jo. ':82-465t, where the court 
considered -i claim of intentional discrimination against female etnployees. Like the 
State of 'Washingtoh , Illinois^^ias conducted its own job evaluation study which showed 



ERIC 



237 . 

/ . 







the female employees ace underpaid relative to males hol.iiruj comparable jobs. Also 
like Washint]ton, 'Illinois has faile'i' r-: ♦■ake afers f.Q ronedv this 'iisi;rininf\tion. 

tn ♦■he Washing ton State ca:5e , *-.he ;'jdc;e ruled tJiat VJashinqton violated Ti»:le VII 
of "ihe '.*ivil pirj^ts Act by payinq wcnen in prodominan*-. 1 •/ female ;bt :lassi: iv:<itions 
less than men in ma^e domcnated cato^ories. 

The decision way based on the "ob ev.iluat lor. sfidv whi^^h showed -.hat wo^en in / 
pcedominanti/ female jobs were pa^d 2''i to 10 perccint les3 thari men, m ^odij rate^i as- 
equal ir; value. 

In ;tacch IjHA, ,VIA received a ri;hf n liue letter fi'-m ""he ::ep.u*-mer.t of Justice 
and intends to our sue tJ'.e Illinois -J iiic/ r imina t ion raiio f'.ir*".her, and will likely file 
suit this sprinq. . 

-:-;»cl:jsi^-^n : 

It i.: well estahl I FjJied that workmq womon continue to earn far less than working 
men, and that thiij waqo -j^p is one of t)ie eldest and siost er.durin.^ syrnptoms of dis- 
crimination. It is also well known that the single, most important reason for this 
waqe diS'zrepUncy is persistent and sev«r^* occ'jpat ioria 1 seqtegatiori which locks women 
into jobs whose worth is undervalued. This waqe has tir'^ven to he relatively 

launMne from s iqn i f i;<^n^ economic and roli*^i';al '"hanqes . 

A ma ] or ob&^u.' L/e to y 1 1 m i na 1 1 nq : i •> : ri m i na t j. on a Md Ac h ; e V i r.q pay equity 1 3 the 

lack of 1 ii^i II r m in ii < federal statut(»s tha*- prohibit wage discrimination 

of the l>asis of ?ie/^, jcakSc , natfional origin, handicap and religion. Although this 

.>r';ement i jut interpret at*^ on of <iome of these laws by 

\ 

Toderal -jourts, it is nssential that ♦^hose agencies desponsi^^le for upholding the^e 
laws vigorously investigate charges of discriminat ion\and expeditiously pursue reme- 
lies to correct violations of the law. ^ ^ 

V 

Any law intended to promote pay equity and eliminate discrimination wage set- 
ting practices must address the speciCi:: problems of women in female-oriented occu- 
pations. Thus, wage setting practices must examine a composite of factors, rather 
than a narrow factor comparison in determining job worth. 

Any law prescribing job evaluation techniqvies should specifically exclude 
market wage rates as a component because thesp rates are inherently sex-biased. 

V 

The American Nurses' Association would like to thank •"hiV? committee for bring- 

\ 

ing attention to the problem of discrifninatory wage sett ii'q pr^victices and specifi- 
cally to the inadequate enforcement of federal nondiscrimination laws. V/e look 
forvard to working with you to help resolve these problems and to achieve pay equi^ 
for all women . 



^235 

Ms. Oakar. Our next witness is Delores Burton, who is the presi- ^ 
dent of Federally Employed Women. Delores, thank you very much 
for coming. ' \ 

STATEMENT OF DELORES BUItTON, PRESIDENT, FEDERALLY 
EMPLOYED WOMEN. INC. 

Ms. Burton. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Oakar I am DeAg 
Burton, president of Federally Employed Women. ^' W' 

The issue of pay equity is an. important and timely issue. Pay 
equity has always been of major concern to our members. And we 
applaud you, Madame Chair, for your initiative in introducing H.R. 
4599 and H.R. 5092, and chairing hearings on this legislation. And 
we are grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

I will proceed to summarize my testimony, and would like to 
.^ubmitr-my^ writt e n -feestimofty-for-^eTecordr — — ^ 

Ms. Oakar. Thank you. 

Ms. Burton. The fact that women are paid less than men in our 
society has a long history. Women have always earned less wages 
than men. A slogan of the women*s movement is that women make 
59 cents for every dollar earned by men. 

Although there have been minor fluctuations in this statistic, it 
has held basically true since the turn of thie century.* This persist- 
ent wage gap has resulted in women having fewer earnings to sup- 
port themselves and their families. 

The wage gap reflects the deep rooted sexual discrimination that 
is so prevalent in this world. Occupational discrimination is preva- 
lent in the federal work force. Today in the Federal Government, 
» women are concentrated in the lowest general schedule grades 
• • earnirtg the lowest wages; 75 percent of all of the women in the GS 

pay system are in grades 1 through 8, and 85 percent of all women 
in the GS pay system are in grades 1 through 9. Only 6 percent of 
all worker^ in the ^executive pay system are women. 

The existence of occupational segregation in the Federal Govern- 
ment is observed even more clearly when we study the detailed oc- 
cupational listings. P'or example, even though women are 80 per- 
cent of all clerical workers, they are 99 percent of the secretarial 
series which is a 08-5. 

Women are 10 pei^cent of all the professional employees, but 99 
percent of all public health nurses are in the professional occupa- 
• tional category. 

The fact that women are in the lowest grades directly results in 
federally employed women earning less wages than men employed 
by the Federal Government. The median earnings inr 1981 of feder-' 
ally employed men was $22,676 a year as compared to $14,414 a 
year for women. 

The occupational crowding of women in certain job categories 
coupled with wage data makes a strong case for discrimination 
practice within the Fedetal Government. These practices must be 
halted at once. 

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 endorses the concept of 
comparable worth and suggested demonstration projects -to be im- » 
plemented. The time for action is now. Comparable worth for feder- 
ally employed women means^that Federal employees regardless of 



236 



sex should be paid equally for jobs that are of comparable value to 
the Government as the employer in terms of skilly effort, and re- 
sponsibility. 

Inherent in this definition is the assumption that the employer 
has k unified job evaluation system which can assign relative value 
to all jobs creating a scheme of internal equity. 

Caution, must be executed, however, because the nature of job 
evaluation makes it possible for sexual bias to enter. For example, 
when determining which factors to incluc|e in a job evaluation and, 
to what degree they should be weighed/ the skills involved in a 
woman's job are often assigned less importance. 

The passage of H.R. 4599, the Federal Employees Pay Act of 
1984, and H.R. 5092, the Pay Equity Act of 1984 would accomplish 
many goals. 

The Office of Personnel Management's study of wage practices 
and position classification in the Federal government would clearly 
show that a wage gap does exist. Agency participation would both 
heighten awareness and include the agencies in their accountabil- 
ity. Setting goals for EEOC will encourage stricter enforcement of 
title VII. 

We applaud your efforts, Madame Chair, to correct pay inequi- 
ties in the Government. We support both H.:^4599 and H.R. 5092, 
and we look forward to working with you em the passage of this 
legislation. 

Thepe are many compelling reasons why pay equity should be re- 
alized ira our society. Women have the same expenses as men, and 
should npt be penalized because of their sex. The wage gap has con- 
tributed^ to a growing number of w6men and children with incomes 
belov^yfhe poverty level. 

Wmnen-headed households as w$ll as elderly women are increas- 
ingly living in poverty. Retirement annuities are dependent on 
one's lifetime earnings. 

Low wages directly translate in1|o small pensions. This is a prob- 
lem shared by women in both priyate and public employment. The 
mean amount of a woman^s Federal pension in 1982 was $7,541 per 
year as compared to $13,767 for men. 

FEW urges this committee to vigorously pursue the issue of pay 
equity in the Federal sector as well as the private sector. The Gov- 
ernment should acfras a role model emplpyer for the priyate sector 
to follow. Eliminatifng wage disparities between men and women in 
comparable jobs in the Federal Government and establishing bias 
free job evaluations would encourage the private sector to follow 
suit. 

We hope the day is near when jobs are not defined by sex, but by 
the skills and responsibilities needed to perform these jobs. 

We thank you very much for allowing us to testify here today, 
and we look forward to working with you a^ain. 
. [The statement of Ms. Burton follows:] 



210 



ERIC o 



237 



f-if.-^JKi r.'OT rificr a^o civil slrvicl suBcorMinu 

ON COMPENSATION AND EMPLOY: ( .ILfJtf I TS , APIUl l'j6^. 



CHAII'/'UMAU OAKAil. IHANK VUU f ^)K ASKIN-;. K.DtRALLY { MJ l OYe D WCML\' , INC. (Rw) 
TO Tc-.TIfY HCKi. rOOAY. f L'W IS AN INU kN/J I OSAL MfML'tK'.MI P OHCAN ! ZAT I On 
RC'PLSf fMUr-. WOMEN IN TH^ f [ KAL ^.OVL ftWf N T IMROCGHObT THE UN I U 0 STATL!, 
AND fOPr,-^ >i;:T\?U^. FLW WAS f JuNDrU IN 1^,(^6 TO ADVCCATL [.CUAL OPP.iTUMTY 
AND fOSTL:^ ruLL fOTLNllAl FOR WO'^KING IN Thf {EniKAL S[iTCP.. IT IS A 

. fnU,,Ti.. NO'.-PFU IT. NON-PAKTISAN 0RGA-|ZA1ICN AND -ITS CmART^K IS THL SAVL 
Af. THAT gr THr K::rHAl. W.;it','S PKO-'.' AN INTERNAL f.OVLf<\'-NT PRO-a'AM 

» E^.fA[iLlM:'-.r LXLCUTIVt O'iDER tl3/S. 

THE n- r-.-.v r;ui-rY i •■r^:/,:;.;,- and timci; i'.vjl. pav tcuiiv 



HLAf<!'.,'- ON IiilS Lrr.n-MICN. Wt AHt ^.ATtfUL PGR 



iHf fAcTTHAT WU'MN p/ | o ^SS TH.^^ f^fN IN OUR SOCI H 1 H/.^ A "l .N^^ Mi::O^V. 

W0:^^^ hAvt ALWA.S f,V;L;) ll;>S UArrs jHAtJ Mr . a SLOGAN OF Inr WO''/.']"S r';Vt- 
MLM IS UiAI WOr.f :. .^Kl S^) CLNTS FOK tVLRY L,OLL.-;-: FAKNLU BY A rAN . ALTH^'JSM 
THL.'-'r MA.'L B\[U M,f;OK FlUCTUATIONS IN THIS STATISTIC. IT HAS mi) 3AS:CA'tY 
TRUl SfNCF TMr TUi-.., CJ W.l Cf^fuHY. THI S ■ PEKS I ST LNT WAC.E CAP HAS RfSULTEO 

WOr.cr, HAVING fLWcp. CAKnINGS TO SUf^PORT fhLMSrLVFS ANO THEIR JAMILUS. 
THE WAGE GAP REfLLClS THE DEf P ROOFLD SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION THAT IS SO 
PREVALENT IN IHIS WORLD. 
THL MALI fL - ' WAGE U ? ' i" L NT I ,U IS WELL DOCUMLNTEP IN THi PRIVATE StCIOR, 
IN MAT, ;'fAL GC .■.•:■■•[ NTS . AND IN THE fEnE-'AL WO^^':f'l AfL . Nu'"[ n?US 

S^UL'ir.S '•.v. [t'[\ C'^Nt'".". THAI uiMONSlP,ATE W-". N AGE, LA^nr fORcE E > J'ER lEfJC F , 
G: juRAPHlC t.O'.-.M (TV, ANO rOUCATI(f:AL ATTAINMLM" IS MCLD C^^NSTANT fOH MEN AND 
WO.'.fN,.A ?0 PL' CENT 'JAGt OIMJRENTI/U S T i L L . E X I S T S . THIS 20 PrRCt»,T IARnINC.S 
GAt^ IS USUALLY ATrKIDUT^U tO SEX 01 SCXi MI MA] I Qn IN THE LADOf^ MA^IKET. 

THE V/ACL GA«' eLTWEHf MEN A»i:; WCMf N IS NOT GOING TO GO AWA^' BY ITSHK LEGIS- 
lAriON AS WELL AS LITICAriO!; IS NKESSAP.Y TO CO^^-RLCI THIS INEOUHAua 
SITUATIOM, THE PROPGNEMS OF A FREE MARKET S^TEM INSIST THAT SUPPLY AND 



Q 35-003 0 - 84 -16 ^ 24 * 



238 



DEMAND DETtftMlNE MARKET WAGES, AND THEREFORE, WOkEN ARC. hECEIVIMG \5aC.ES IN 
ACCORDANCC WITH THEIR WORTH TO SOCIETY. SUPPLY AND DEMAND FUNCTIONS IN THE.' 
LABOR MARKET CONTAIN OlSCR IMINATGRY ATTITUDES TKAT CAN ONLY BE CORRECTED, BY 
MEASURES SUCK AS THE PROPOSEp LEGISLATION. 

OCCUPATIONAL SECRECAT 10;, EXISTS WHEN WOMEN AND MEN ARE CONCENTRATED IN DIF- > 
FERENV JOB CATEGORIES. OCCUPATIONAL SEGREGATION SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTS MALE 
AND FEMALE WAGE RATES. WOMEN ARE EXCLUDED FROM HIGH WAGE JOBS WHERE THE ^ 
MAJORITY OF THE WORKERS ARE MALE AND CROWDED INTO JOBS WITH LOWER RATES OF 
PAY AND PRESTIGE. IN ADDITION, WOMEN AND MEN ARE OFTEN IN JOBS WITH COM- 
PARABLE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES, YET THE JOBS^MINATED BY MALE EMPLOYEES 
ARE HIGHER WAGE OCCUPATIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, WOMEN ARE TYPICALLY CHAMBERMAIDS 
WHICH IS SIMILAR TO THE MALF DOMINATED OCCUPATION OF JANITORS, YET THE 1970 
MEDIAN EARNINGS FOR CHAMBERMAIDS WAS $2870 PER YEAR AS COMPARED TO THE 1970 
MEDIAN EARNINGS OF $3590 PER Y(fAR FOR J AN I TORS . ^ ACCORD I NG TO MANY ECONOMISTS, 
THE LOW WAGES THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH SEGREGATED JOBS IS THE MAJOR EXPLANATION 
FOR THE EARNINGS GAP BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN. CERTAIN JO'fe CATEGORIES ARE RE- 
SERVED iOli WOMEN AND MINORITIES WHICH S l-MULTANEOUSI.Y DETERMINES THE LOW ^ 
ECONOMIC VALUE OF THOSE .tObS. IN FACT, STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THAT AS WOMEN 
ENTER AN OCCUPATION IN LAKGE NUMBERS. THE WAGES FOR BOTH MEN AND WOMEN IN • 
THAT OCCUPATION DECLINE. A NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE S TJOY FOUND THAT 
EACH ADDIIIONAL PEf^NTAGE POINT OF WOMEN IN AN OCCUPATION EQUALS 
^ S'l? LESS IN OVERALL WAGES. THE OCCUPATION OF RAD 1 0 OPERATORS ILLUSTRATES 

- THIS PHfNQM.LNON. IN I960 ONLY T/ PERCENT OF ALL PADIO OPERATORS WERE WOMEN, ^ 
BUT \n 1980 b? PERCENT OF ALL RADIO OPERATOR:^ WERE WOMEN. DURING THIS 
20-YrAR PiRICD. MEN'S MEDIAN ANNUAL WAGES IN THE RADIO gPERATION OCCUPATION 
DROPPED FROM 108 PERCENT OF AVERAGE MEN'S WAGES IN ALL OCCUPATIONS TO ONLY " 



67 PERCENT OF AVERAGE MEN'S WAGES IN ALL OCCUPATIONS. 



OCCUPATIONAL SE'^REr.ATlON IS PREVALENT IN THE FEDERAL WORKPLACE ALSO. FROM 
THE BtGlN-;M.G OF V/OMEN'S PARTICIPATION AS GOVEPN'MENT EMPLCVEES . Tli8|j|[jJERE 
SEGRLf.AUJ INTO \.0\i ftAYING SEPARATE OCCUPATIONS. THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT 
OF TrIE TREASURY, SPIIiNER, IS CREDITED FOR BRINGING FEMALE 'lABOR INTO THE 
GOVERNMENT SECTOR IN l86?. HIS RATIONALE WAS THAT "WOMEN CAN USE SCISSORS 
BETTER THAN MPl AMD ^HEY WILL DO IT CHEAPER." HE HIRED WOMEN TO CUT TREASURY 
NOTES AT $600 PER YEAR AS TEMPORARY CLERKS. TODAY IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

"242 <^ 



» 

239 



WOMEN AHt: CONCENTRATED INTO THt, LOV/LSl Gt'^-AL SCiifHUU C.'\Ay(\ (GS), EARNlr/G 
THE* LOWrSf WA^.fS. SLVtNlY-nvt rtKLlNT Of ALL V/OMIM I 'i Tlit G'". PAY SYOfrM ART. 
IN GP.AOr^ I TMrr.:;GM « A^•D fi[, PFnONr or ALL WOMfN IN TML GS PAY SV^ftM Ak[ IN 
GHAOLS 1 lhKO-'.:i ONLY 6 PLKlJNI 0? ALL Wi^KKER*; IH TML EvKLnvf PAY SYbTEH 

AREWqML-];. THl E X I STl KC£;. Of OCCUPAIIONAl SECKLGATION IN THE fEOEPAL GOVEi^rjMENT 
IS OBSEfWED EVEN MORE CLEARLY WHEN ONE I^TUDIE^^ THE DETAILED OCCUf^AT I CNAl 
LISTINGS. FOR EXAMPLE, EVEN THOUGH WO.MEN Af<E 80 PERCENT Or ALL CLERICAL 
WORKERS, THEY-'ARE 99 PEicfNT Of THE SECRETARIAL SERIFS (CS-^). WOMEN ARE 

10 plrcln'^ i.'f mli yH:ir'is\[)u;.\ e'!"ioyu.s, but 9Q PEf.f ' :a' o^" all publk 

MlmLTH NJ- .r. \n IHL f -'OJ E';.S r". ^■. (K C'JPAl IO»r.L ',ATLGOf:V. 

THE fACl THAT VtOMEN rv.i \u THE LOWEST GRAD' : u'l?.ECTl.Y RE^Ul TS IN fCOERALLV 
EMPLOUf) WOMLN E/'.PNIW:. LOWER WACES JHAN MEN EMf'LOYED'UY IHE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 
THL MEDIAN fAP.NlNGS IN I98l Of^ FEDERALLY EMPlOYED ME :^ wAS $22,6/6 PER YEAR 
Ab COMPAhMi TO $|i4,M^ PER YEAR FOR WOMEN. \U ADDITION,, V/ITHIM EACH OCCUPA- 
TIONAL SEPICS MEN EA.VJ MOf^E EHAn WCMUi (Pf-Of ES'^I QNAl. . AOM I N I S TRA Fl VE , TECHNICAL 
ANO CtRICAL). ALTHOUGH THE fcoO SERIES (LIBRARY AND ARCHIVES WCrUfiS) IS 
DOMINATE'J BY WOMEN, MEN'S ANNUAL WAGES ARE $23,13^ PER YEAR A:» CC/'.PARED TO 
$21,010 PcR YEAR FOR WOMEN. 

THt OCCUPATIONAL CnOv^DlNG OF WOMEN IN CERTAIN JOB CATEGORIES COUPLED WITH 
WAGE DATA MAKES A STRONG C^-tSE FOR DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES IN THE FEDERAL 
GOVERNMENT. THESE PRACTICES MUST BE HALTED AT ONCE. . THE CIVIL SERVICE 
REFORM ACTOF 19/8 ENDORSED THE CONCEPT Of COMPARABLE WORTH ANO SUGGESTED 
OtMONSTf^AllON PROJECTS BE IMPLEMEul^D. THE TIME FOR ACTION IS NOvJ. 

COMPARABLE WORTH FOR FEDERALLY EMPLOYED WOMEN M^ANS THAT FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, 
REGARDLESS OF SEX, SHOULD BE PAID EQUALLY FOR JOGS THAT ARE OF COMPARABLE 
VALUE TO THE GOVERNMENT AS EMPLOYER (IN TERMS OF 5KJ LLj^FFORT . AND RE- 
SPONSJBILITY) . INHERENT* IN THIS DEFINITION IS THE A^UMPTION THAT THE 
ErtPLOYER HAS A UNIFIED JOB EVALUATION SYSTEM WHICH CAN ASSIGN RELATIVE VALUE 
TO ALL\JOBS, CREATING A SDIEME OF INTERNAL EQUITY. CAUTION MUST BE EXECUTED, 
HOWEVER. BECAUSE THE NATURf OF JOB EVALUATIONS MAKES IT POSSIBLE FOR SEXUAL 



BIAS TO ENfER. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN DETERMINING WHICH FACTORS TO INCLUDE IN A 




S 




240 



JOB L'VALU-IIOS A.'iD TO UilAT DtU.'-LL IliliY : H'.'CLU I't VtV..U'J, THF. ^.KlLlS IMVlM'tO 

^ . . 

■ IN A "WOn/.'i'S JOB" AK[ 0^ TLN AS^U.'ifD I iN'OIUArir f . 

GOVtRNKLM Oi'MClAlS m[ THi: Of f I Ll Of PL^Si :,ulL MAnAGL: f :.T ^CL A I :\ 

coMpARAaLi v;oiaa is not a pKuM : TUf. udlkal slkvicc. this cl^'^i.^^ i'^ 

BA-itD Ori 'i\*t FACT THAT IHI GO\/(«N'U';r nA-. A UNlfl[D JOB C L/SM I I C AT I Cfi SY!;tEM 
WHICH HE/-GL'MS ALL WHITE Ci'lLA^v jOi-O l^Y THt. SArt YAf>.uSTICK AK? TmAI ONL Sf.l 
OF DEFIMTICN- AfPLllS TO ALL G^- LtVELS. IF THE FfOt?-'' SfriOR r, F fU E 0? 
sex DISCRi Mn;,TIG:J I'; .ICr- EVALU" K.'.O , \.MY CU WO^'EN Ef.iaOYU'. CvlAiSTEMTLV 
IHH LESS THAN THh M< ^»Ll COI-N T ' ^■•^^H^SS ? ' ^ 



THE GENLF<A; SCHEDJLf V/AS (-iSIL'iLl' III 1^5^*9 IH SUCH A WAY TO PhLSEHvL SOT^i 
Iii£?PAY Afia THE JOb' KEl.AT I O'.Ml I PS VnCH WCkE ESTAOLIShEU IN THE 1^23 

CI ASSiHc'-Tic; Aci . . oefln::-:*" . of the GuvE:^'.'".Cf;( 's systl'*. point to its en- 

uijP.AfiCL AS h'A lilDICATCK Qf MS VALIDITY. OTHtKS AUGUt rMAT SUCH AN AC^'ISSiO:^ 
if 

1^ SrKGf,r EViDLNCE THE SYSiE*- 'S FAILURE TO RESPOND TO SOCI/L CHAHG^ AfiO 
l-IS. PLRPETv^ATlON OF SLX D I SCf^ I I IlAT 1 0^.' . ) 



IN THE 19/0^ THE JOB EVALUATION AflD RANKING METHOD WAS FU^^HLi^ KU IfJCD BY 

THE ADDITION CF THE FACTOR EVALUATION SYSTEM (FE^) . FES IS A PROGKESSlVt ^ 

SYSTEM IN THAT IT DOES FORMALIZE AND RATIONALIZE JOB CRITERIA IN A SY^j»TEMATlC 

WAY. QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENTS REPLACED NARRAT I VE INTERPRETATIONS FOR ASfl'lGNlNG 

VALUES (AND HENCE WAGES) TO DIFFERENT OCCUPATIONS. THE PROBLEM STILL EXISTS. 

HOWEVER, jpN THE RANKING OF FACTORS. MANY KEY COMPONENTS OF "WOMEN ' l| JOBS" 

ARE GROSSLY UNDERVALUED. SPEED AND FINE MOTOR REQUIREMENTS, NEGATIV!e WOrVinG 

cbNDITIONS, AND ADAPTING TO NEW TECHNOLOGY (COMPONENTS OF MANY CLERICAL OC- 

{ 

CUP^IONS) ARE GIVEN LOW PRIORITY WHEN RANKING FACTtOKS IN JOB EVALUA^T I ONS , 
DAILY \0n I ACT WITH OFFICIALS IS KCUE HIGHLY VALUED I HAN DAILY CONTACT Wll^' _ 
OTHER PE^LE (OUCH AS PATIENTS). TAKING CARE OF PEOPLE IS LESS VALUED THAN 
OPERATING V^CHINES. HEAVY LIFTING IS MORt. HIGHLY VALUED THAN RF-lATED LIGHT ' 
LIFTING, AND\SO ON. THE NINE FACTORS THAt ARE USED 'IN EVALUATING JOBS AND 
THE VMLJit ASS'iVnED TO EACH FACTOR IS BASED ON OUTMODED VALUE JUDGMENTS AND 
PERCEPTIONS. STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE BY NUMEROUS COMMISSIONS. UNIONS AND 
PERSONNEL DEPARTMENTS WHO ALL SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT PUBLIC SECTOR 
WORKFORCES ARE SEX SEGREGATED AND SEX DISCRIMINATION IS AN INHERENT PART 



244 



\ u£ST i^<^ 



241 



OF THt JOB E.V.L,;.-.!,,'. SV-.IP'. luCfClW, A';-' L^L I S ul Tt'l H ■■ A. c L AV. I r I CAT I.ON ' ^ 



TO 



.TV 

■it;.: 'c\ 

l'JT ; TLi j 



Ti:f f.Qi/. {>;.-,• nCf (' l:)i>3 A:«U rilLt-VII C. Th: CiVil. KI^'^'S ACT =. 

rD« C0Ri.£;ri?,: [):vchm,m;;,n ia:.';^ rUuKt r. in r/./j7 - 

TO TiTu: v.. ir. slx :t GKL-.Uf o-'.i a:\ou /..--.i 

UNOflR TiriL VII TO ;frC;< M^:.. THAT DL^>«K.^t:) WAG^.:^ A^j; IN PA^^l I- TO .PU?:- 
POSCrUI. l>r.l,NTIO'..\L rjOL;P!riN/.T ION BLC/.UliL Of SU. Al THOUGH THt; G'^NTmck 
DECIOlO.-l UCtS NUT DIP.ICTLY AffeCl THE TEDlPAL GOVtRN^^- '1 r , THE I ."iPL I CA . I 0!,'". 
A«E^CI.1/R. TML r.EUNi l;ECISIO!i [JY JUDGE T/.N'.ER IN AfMM E V. STATF CY 
, W/.^2!iliitTCN (WA. S; CT. 1983) IS ALSO VERf SIGNIFICANT. FlKTEEN THOUSAND 
WO'IEN WOfKh.f. FOR Thf/STATE OF WASKI L-GTON WILL RECEIVE P/.Y I NCRlA'.cO BECAUSE 
THtIK J,\i' ,V^i COMF-AlvAPLE TO HIGHER PAID JOOS" HELD BY THIS CASE IS THE 

STRONGEST nU'J.^AL ENf>OK': LKL N f TO DATE FOR COMPARABLE WOf<TH. 
i» 

THE EQUA! PAY ACT OF 1%3. TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, EXECUTIVE 
ORDER n?i.6. AND THE CIVIL SERVICE RFFORM ACT OF \')/S ALL AFFIffr. THE NEFO FOR 

cOrti'AK.M.i.i Wo. ui. ri'LL LN' 'v.a-'L.M of these laws \ j a n:., i 'Vjiry lo r.vsi 
SEX t!isCHiMi.N/.r I '/' \:i I :u i j^.-.i.'n . 
% 

TiiE f^A'j'.AoE 0\ H.K. '.S'^O, "Kir. FEDERAL E^'fUOYLCS P',/ fOl'ITY ACT OF IV^'-' 
Ai:n -..r'. ^-i?, ■•ImL f*AY equity act of 1y8^'MV0aLU AClOMr'LISH MANY COALS. 
T-HE fv.UE Cr rr.f/.ON,i:L MAI J E ' N T ' S STU:)Y OF WAGE PF'-mCTICES .'-NO fO'ilTION 
CALSMT iCAl I'/i I'l ru>P-M GO'.'. ".N^ENT WOUli) CLlMlV Si;;fw THAT A WAGE CAP 

EXISTS. ASENfY P/*5^ 1 I C ! PAT 1 C'i WIlL HOTM S^EK.MTEN AL^'<ENlSS AN^j iNCl'jrE THr 
A(rNCi:S IN ACCCUNTA3ILITY. SFTTING GUIDES fQU lCOC WILL EMGU^'^Gf ST•^ICTE^: 
ENFORfEMLHV OF TITLE VII. V/f TlAUD YOU'^ EFFORT, HAOAm CHAIP., TO CO'VRECT 
PAY INl':-'!! - ! f ;f! THE, r,OVFP:^^"^■F . FFW SUPf'ORTS RO'-H H.R. ^'^OS ^'NH b-^-'SO^J? 
AND WL tOOK i"OR'.;Af{[J TO WORKING \.'I.TH YOU 0''. THE PASSAGE OT THIS LEGISLATION." 

THERE Af^E MANY CF'^'^fLLING REASONS WHY PAY EOUiTY SHOULD Bt REAHaU IN O'jR 
SOCIETY. UOl^Vl liAVF THE SA.^E EXPENSES AS MEN AKO SHQJLD NOT 8l PENAII7ED 



t 



m ' 24b 



242 



DIKLCTLY TKA'.SLAVt INTO SMALl PUi:\Otr. . IS A Pf>OiULM ^.i{A>: 0 v >'.L'< 

IN BOTH PR.IVAVr AND PUBLIC LQY-M^fj I . THf .'^fAM AMCijNT ('^ A WO;•^A•]'^ mf^^^; 

PtNSiOJ; IN 1932 v.ci. $/.{>Jti PtR m:ah AS coM.rAf-co ru ro-: "-zu. 



FEW U'.'.iS THIS CO"M|TTEl TC VI0Oru:'CSLY PuKSUE TME ISjl'i: OT P.->Y rQiilY l 'i 
THE riDERAL S^CTO^. AS V/tlL AS I IHE PK I VATE . SE CI OK . TUt r.OVE!!J;MeNT ShO^HD 
* ACT AS A MOOrt EMr^LOYLR f OR TilE^RIVATE SfCTCH TO rOMOW. £LlfMNAT»MG V/A^E 

disparjtie:; petv/lF.n men anu women in cnnpArtABLE ^lObS \n ^H^ eeolral government 
AND ESrAOLi i-i:: . Nz-S Tk: I jov. [ vAj.uAT I 'V.s woui> is'Au:iAs: ii.'. >'<iVA-L Sector 
10 r-otLf~w Sun. wr ^iCpe tj..; is ni:^'- *.'HlN jcir- Aj;r vot p:n\rD r.v- the 

StX l»L'T bY r"L SviLlS ANt RtS'-ONSUULi Y NilDEH TO PtlifO'^-M THOSE JCbS . 

TH/t^YOU. MAt-A'l CMR, F^'R ATKINS US 10 TLSriFY HIKE TOQAY. Wt WOUL:) 
HArl'i TO Af/.V-'Eft AM Q'JLSTIO'iS F PC'A THL COM-'MniE. 



■243 

Ms. Oakar. Thank you very much. I want to congratulate you on 
your new appointment. Probably the one thing that I agree with 
Dr. Devine on is this recently inspired activity that he had enough 
good sense to appoint you the Chair. So, good luck with it. 

Ms, Burton. Thank you very much. And, I hope that maybe Dr. 
Devine does share some of our concern, and can see that my pres- 
ence there is moving in the direction that we are-^ — 

Ms. Oakar. I only have a positive influence, I am sure. 

Ms. Burton. I hope so. Thank you very much. 
„ Ms. Oakar. The next witness is Cheryl Wainwrigh* from Nine to 
Five. - ^ 

STATKMKNT OF CHERYL WAINWRKJIIT. FOKMKIfr VI( K F>KKSI- 
DKNT OF 9 TO 5 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Ofc; WORKING WOTVIKN 

Ms. Wainwright. Thank you, Madam Chair and subcommittee 
members for invitir>f> me to testify about this important piece of 
legislation 

My name is Cheryl Wainwright. I am a member and former vice 
president of 9 to 5 the National Association of Working Women. I 
am also a full-time clerical workers. 

„ 9 to 5 is a national membership organization of office workers 
with 12,000 members aiid 21 chapters around'the country. Our goal ' 
IS to improve the status. of women office workers by upgrading pay, 
■gaining respect, and inguring our rights are protected on the job.' 
We strongly support the proposed Pay Equity Act of 1984, H.R. 
;)092, which will insure strong enforcement of pay equity. 

The past decade was a period of debate about the status of 
women_ workers. Now that debate- is over. There is no question that 
women s work is characterized by discrimination. Every measure 
proyes it. We average r)9 cents to every dollar earned by man. We 
can t go into a store and say to the cashier, "Surely as you can see, 
I am a women, .but by me making only 50 cents t%^i man's dollar, I 
am sure you would not mind if I only paid 59 percent of the total 
bill. 

Recent Department of Labor statistics show that.wdmen earn 
considerably less than men in every field. Women with college de- 
grees earn less on the average than men with high school diplo- 
mas. And highly skilled clericals, rfurses. Women in other women's 
jobs earn far less than^ men working as warehousemen, grocery 
baggers and parking lot attendants. 

Women are segregated into the largest 'paying job categories in 
the labor force. Job segregation is so severe, that in 1982 more than 
oO percent of all female workers were concentrated, and 20 of the 
total 427 occupations. 

One of those occupations is clerical work. In the mid-1800's cleri- 
cal work was dominated by middle dUsH males and paid very good 
wages. By the HMO's, women dominated the clerical work force, 
and it wa§ no longer a well paying occupation. 

Today, office workers are the largest sector of the work force^; 20 
percent of all workers are clericals. And more than one-third pf'all 
women workers are clericals. 

/ ■ ' ; 



} 



244 



The typical work is no longer a man in a hard hat, but a women 
at a typewriter or rather a keyboard as typewriters are Replaced by- 
video display terminals. 

Office wX)rk is one of the few growing sectors of the work force 
and is the fastest growing. 

Despite our importanci to the Nation's economy, we are among 
the lowest paid of all workers, earning less than 'every type of blue 
collar worker. The average woman clericals salary hovers around 
$12,()()(). ' ^ 

^ Office workers are' trapped in a job ghetto; SO percent of all 
workers are women, and 1)S percent of all secretaries are \vomen. 

Job segregation in the. office is so severe, that a womar> clerical 
who feels underpaid can rarely find a man doing equal. For exam- 
ple, similar work to compare herself to. When she does find this 
one, he usually earns $4,()()() a year more than she does.^ 

Our low wages may reflect the prevailing rates of office ^ork, 
^but our pay is the rude violation of the spirit of the equal employ- 
ment laws. 

Why-are women concentrating in job ghettos? And why are our 
wages low in relative to other workers?' 

9 to 5 maintains that employees create and maintain a female 
job ghetto by discriminating an,d hiring, promotion, transfer and 

pay. ^ 

9 to 5 have hundreds and hundreds of cases of discrimination, 
our meml^ers have encountered over the last 10 years in every 
State of the Union. And 9 to 5 members write to us regularly with 
complaints of wage discrimination. 

For example, a study of public employees in Newark, N.J., found, 
that auto mechanics earn 45 percent more than senior stenogra- 
phers in 1980. Both are equally skilled jobs, but auto mechanics are 
all men, and stenographers ar^e all females. 

Another public employee study in Minneapolis, Minn., shows 
mid-level clerk typists earning $18,124 and sanitation workers 
* earning $2.S,712. Both jobs require equal levels of skill ^and respon- 
sibility but the typists dre mostly females, and the sanitation work- 
ers are mostly males. 

9 to 5 members in Muncie,Tnd:, conducted a study of wage classi- 
fication at Ball State University where they were employed. They 
found that high lavel clerical workers, mostly females, earned 21 
percent less than entry level custodian workers, mostly males. 

When the clerical workers seized the opportunity to earn more 
pay by applying for the custodial positions, they were informed 
that they were overqualified for those jobs. 

The consequences of wage discrimination help to account for the 
increasing poverty among women of all ages. One-third of the 9 
million females headed households in the United States are at. pov- 
erty .level. One in five women will be poor in her old age. 

Clearly wage discrimination laws are not adequately enforced. 
When our members encountered discriminatory situations and take 
cases to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, they are 
discouraged by the immense backlog and incredibly slow processing 

of cases. ' . • 

Few office workers can afford the tim^ and the ongoing mental 
* anguish which are currently required to take a case to the agency. 

ERIC o . 



\ 

Many who a^e suffering discrimination do not bother to take cases 
to the EEOC because the process is so discouraging. They do not 
feel that their cases will be taken seriously. 

And in this situation, many employees see no reason to fear the 
agency s regulatory powers. They feel free to not deal with pay 
equity problems. 

Now is th^vtime to take serious action to readdress these inequi- 
ties and realize the true spirit of employment opportunity laws. 
The proposed Pay Equity Act of 1984 will accomplish this by press- 
ing enforcement agencies to take action on pay equity cases. 

9 to 5 supports H.R. 5092 because it will begin to address those . 
problems. V 

As a short-term strategy, the bill will help working women who 
are taking cases to the agencies receive more prompt remedies. In 
the long run as attention is drawn to these issues, pay equity en- 
forcements employers who have been lax in addressing pay equity 
problems will see that it is no longer to their advantage to do so. 

Again, thank you, JVIadam Chair and the members, for truly, I 
appreciate the opportunity to come before you today. 

Ms. Oakar. Well, thank you, Cheryl. I am only sorry that the 
head of EEOC could not hear your testimony. Maybe we can see if 
we can get it over to him. Sometimes I think that instead of having 
a hearing we should be conducting a debate on the issue. 

We 'want you to know, since the Chair represents Cleveland, 
Ohio, how proud we are of 9 to 5, which has its roots in Cleveland. • 

Our next witness is, Ms. Catherine Waelder who is the general 
^ounsel for the National Federation of Federal Employees. 

STATEMENT OF CATHERINE WAELDER, GENEFtAL COUNSEL FOR 
THE ^ATH)NAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES 

Ms. Waelder. Madame Chair, I am pleased to appear before the 
subcommittee today dn behalf of the National Federation of Feder- 
al Employees to support two bills, H.R. 4599 and H.R. 5092, which 
the chairwoman has introduced to promote pay equity in the work 
force, and particularly in the Federal Government. 

NFFE has long taken an active role in seeking to promote pay 
equity within the Federal work force. We joined in an amicus bfief 
in the Gunther case, the first Supreme Court case to touch upon 
the concept of comparable worth in the evaluation of different jobs ^ 
held by male and female workers. And to allow a suit based upon 
title VII, due to the documented wage disparity between those jobs. 

We have been an active member of the Federal sector caucus of 
the Committee on Pay Equity. The delegates to our last biannual •^V 
convention adopted a resolution which reads: 

\yhereas women are concentrated in service and support jobs where salary levels 
are lower than in fields where men predominate. Therefore, be it resolved that the 
NFFE support legislation to achieve pay eauity for women by eliminating policies 
which set pay at \ovftL levels for jobs which are traditionally held by women, and 
jobs traditionally heldoy men. 

And NFFE represents a large nuifWber of women in female domi- 
\ hated occupational classifications, principally nurses and health 
^ : care professionals in the Veterans' Administration, teachers in the 
\ Bureau of Indians Affairs, and clerk typists and secretaries 
\ throughout the Government, 

ERIC . 24,:/ 



^46 



On September 30,1982, NFFE appeared before a joint hearing of 
the Civil Service Subcommittee. The Human Resources Subcommit- 
tee and the Compensation, and Employee Benefit Subcommittee to 
testify for a need for the thorough review of the obstacles to 
achieve pay equity ip the Federal Government. 

The introduction "of H.R. 4599 and H.R. 5092 along with todays 
hearings mark an important step toward identifying and overcom- 
ing the obstacles that we discussed 3 years ago. 

Both bills also go a long way in reaffirming the fact that wage 
discrimination still exists within the Federal Government, and that 
it primarily affects women. 

H.R. 4599 and H.R. 5092 both contain congressional findings that 
women generally earn less than men because jobs held predomi- 
nantly by women usually provide lower compensation than those 
held predominantly )iy male workers. Although women have in- 
creased as a percentage of the total workjorce, this wage disparity 
persists. Women receive approximately 59 cents for each dollar 
earned by a man, and this represents a 5 cent decrease since 1957 
when the ratio was '64 cents to every dollar. [A related, often over- 
looked consequence of wage disparity is the likelihood that the dis- 
parity will continue into retirement. Because many pension plans, 
including the Civil Service Retirement System, factor earnings into 
retirement compensation, women "Continue to be penalized upon re- 
tirement for inequitable employment and wage practices.] 

Within the Federal Government women continue to be concen- 
trated in the lower paid grades. Qongressional findings in your bills 
that women generally earn less than men, because jobs held pre- 
dominately by women usually provide lower compensation, thani^ 
those held predominately by male workers is certainly very appre- 
ciated. 

The concentration of women in the lower paid grades exagger- 
ates the problem of pay inequity. Although, women represent 35 
percent of the civil service work force, and more lilcely to be select- 
ed for work of a clerical or support nature. 

In 1980 women represented 51 percent of the Federal clerical 
work force; 43 percent of the" technical work force; and only 23 pjer- 
cent of the professional work force. It comes as no surprise then, 
that women employed by the Federal Government that year re- 
ceived annual salaries of about $16,000,00 compared to the average 
man salary of about $21,000,00. 

The need for studies comparing male dominated and female 
dominated jobs is vital to the implementation of equal pay for jobs 
of equal value. h 

Job evaluation studies were critical to the plaintiff success in the 
Gunther case as well as in the recent District Court judgmerit in 
AFSCME the State of Washington. 

We think the requirements of H,R, 4599 and H.R. 5092 charging 
the EEOC and the Office Personnel Management with the responsi- 
bility for conducting research to (develop methods and techniques, 
•for identifying and measuring discrimination in wages are vital to 
this effort. And, I believe these are important steps in the right di- 
rection. 

The fact that women are paid less than men in both the private 
and public sector is indisputable although the reasons for the obvi- 



« 

247 



ous pay disparity are controversial. At the heart of wage inequity 
seems to be the Wong-held attitude that women are the ''weaker 
sex and the female-dominated jobs are therefore ''worth" less 
than jobs held by men, and should be compensated as such. Like- 
wise, men have traditionally been perceived as the "breadwinner" 
^nd supporter of the family, thus needing higher wages. This 
notion, perhaps above all misconceptions, is highly discriminatory 
and entirely fallacious}. Salaries should not be designed on the basis 
of need. If ^ this practice were followed, men with larger families 
would be better compensated than men with smaller or no familes. 

Employers m both the public and private sector need to stop 
thinking in these terms and instead concentrate more on the worth 
of their employees' work. Generally defined, comparable worth is 
the idea that equal salaries should be paid for jobs that require 
comparable effort, skill and responsibility. 

The principle of comparable worth supports the development and 
application of a bias-free evaluation system that uses objective cri- 
teria to assess any given occupation. 

Despite the clearly defined objectives of comparable worth the 
concept has yet to be realized because of the failure to reach a 
sensus^ m judging worth and finding a job evaluation system and 
classification standards that adequately assesses worth. 

Many of the standards in job evaluations are outmoded and con- 
tinue to be weighted against women. 

A comprehensive study of the classification standards used by 
the Federal Government in its job evaluation system is long over- 
due. 

NFFE supports the language in H.R. 4599 that requires 0PM to 
complete a thorough review of the extent of waae discrimination^ 
withm the Government's position classification system; to recom- 
mend equitable job evaluation techniques to correct these discrep- 
ancies, and to. develop a timetable for implementing their recom- 
mendationsl 

If enacted H.R. 4599 could force 0PM to take a significant step 
toward resolving the wage classification disparity within the Feder- 
al work force. Although the Federal Government has attempted in 
the past to update its evaluation system, the necessary forms to 
correct wage discrimination were not made. 

In 1975, a new factor evaluation system [FESj was designed to re- 
place the old narrative system with one based on nine factors- 
knowledge . required by position, supervisory control, guidelines, 
complexity, scope and effect, personal contact, purpose of contacts, 
physical demands, and work environment. Each is assigned a spe- 
cific range of points. The factors are subdivided into levels which 
determine the total points a job may receive based upon the posi- 
tion description. When the points are tallied, they are matched to a 
conversion table that determines the grade based on the total 
number of points. 

Although 0PM may claim that the FES is a bias-free, quantita- 
tive Evaluation system, the FES has nevertheless failed to objec- 
^tively assess the yalue or worth of most female-dominated jobs. The 
^new system still relies on outmoded value judgments and stand- 
ards. Because the standards'used are not continuously revised, they 
frequently fail to account for the ability needed to use the develop- 



ERIC 



248 



ing technological resources essential in many professions (i.e., data 
processing knowledge and word processing skills). The factors ap- 
plied to job descriptions tend to be weighted against or fail to ac- 
count for traditionally female 'skills" because they do not recog- 
nise the value of such skills. 

The factor which assesses personal contact in any given occupa- 
tion provides a good example of the biases withwi the FES. The 
factor assigns few points to positions where contacts are with co- 
workers or which require the answering of simple^ questions from 
the public. High points, however, are assigned to positions which 
require contacts with high status professionals or high ranking offi- 
cials. Therefore, a nurse who must deal primarily with coworkers > 
and must assist patients and their families by relying on tqct, ex- 
*,pertise and professionalism will receive fewer points than a' hospi- 
tal administrator who uses the same skills. The end result is that 
typically 'Temale" jobs continue to be given lower grade status. 

Classification disparities continue to plague many female-domi- 
nated professions, and 0PM has generally failed to undertake a 
fair consideration of them. NFFE has continuously encountered the 
refusal of both 0PM and agencies to undertake a position-to-posi- 
tion job review in classification appeals. 0PM has only been willing 
to compare an employee's position with the standards for her 
series, a practice frowned upon by the courts. In Haneke v. Secre- 
tary of HEW, 535 F.2d 1291 (D,C. 1976). the court lield that in proc- 
essing classification appeals OPM's predecessG[r, the Civil Service 
Commission violated 5 U.S.C. 5101 wfien it refused to do position- 
to-position comparisons. Thus, in a situation where two people are 
doing the same or comparable work under different job series, clas- 
sifiers refuse to make essential comparisons. 

Pay equity does not exist for federally employed women. While 
limited remedies are available to combat situations of wage inequi- 
ty or discrimination once they have occurred, 'the root of the prob- 
lem remains unchanged. In spite of the equal pay provision in title 
V, the structure of pay and classification standards precludes pay 
equity. Implicit in the grading system are societal values which are 
often sexually biased. The actual process of assigning particular 
jobs to particular grades is also inherently subjective, and sex role 
stereotyping is common. The result is the underevaluation of jobs 
held predominantly by women. Finally, the mechanics of tha^>* 
system, such as career training, prevents upward mobility out of 
gender-dominated jobs. 

The thorough review of the position-classification system called 
for in H.R. 4599 is therefore essential. When NFFE , testified in Sep- 
tember 1982 on the issue of pay equity, we called for such a study 
and stated that ''0PM should undertake aii ongoing review of the 
skills required in most female-dominated occupations and update 
their relative value and worth." H.R. 4599 would require 0PM and 
other Federal agencies to take this step toward identifying gender- 
biase(^ job standards and correcting them. It is NFFE's hope that 
upon enactment of H.R. 4599 the administration will carry out the 
bilTs mandate in a fair and timelv manner. 

NFFE also recommends the following legislative changes we ad- 
vocated in 1982 and which we continue to support. We believe it 
would be helpful to delete the exclusion of classification appeals 



i 

249 



from the grievance procedure found in title 5, United States Code, 
section 7121(0(5) to allow classification decisions to be grieved and 
arbitrated as they are in the private sector. Currently, 0PM has 
^ the only word on classification appeals. The system could be im- 
proved if employees had an opportunity to have third party review 

* of the classfication decision. Second, we think 0PM should be re- 
quired to do position-to-position comparisons when evidence of mis- 

^ classification based or^such comparisons is raised in an appeal. 

Third, we feel it would be useful to bring the language of the 
classiricatioh section of the statute, title 5, United States Code, sec- 
tion niOl. into line with the principle of the Civil Service Reform 
Act that equal pay^i)e provided for work of equ^l value. The statute 
currently says that equal pay will be provided for substantially 
equal work. It is closer to the Equal Pay Act standard than to the 
pay equity standard embracedsn the preamble in section 2801 of 
the Civil Service Refornj Act, VVe>vtQij]d like to put the concept of 
pay equity into a part dfsthe statute wFTere it can do more substan- 
tive good and can be bettel used as a tool for pay-^^uity. 

Finally, we believe that the statute should be^mended in section 
5596 to prdvide retroactive pay in classification appeals, overruling 
the Tentan case, a Supreme Court case which held that retroactive 
pay was not provided for by current statute. 

In conclusion, NFFE also strongly supports the intent of H.R. 
5092 to identify discrirjiinatory wage-setting practices, to promote 

• pay scales based upon the 'Vorth'' of work performed by an em- 
ployee and to insure that Federal workers' are given equal pay for 
work of equal value. (The bill calls upon the Equal Employment Op- 
portunity CommissioW the Secretary of Labor, and the Attorney 
General to report to Wie President and Congress on their enforce- 
ment of wage discij^h^tion prohibitions. Once again, this requires 
full cooperation frorr^he administration. Not only must adequate 
funding for these agencies be included in the President s annual 
budget requests, but each agency must also work diligently to de- 
velop the means to insure pay equity becomes a part of the Federal 
wage system. 

That concludes our statement. I would be pleased to answer any 
questions you might have. 

Ms. Oakar. Thank you very much. I appreciate your suggestions 
concerning the legislation. 

Tht reason I smiled when you were talking about— adequate 
funding for the bill, was because EEOC stated that inadequate 
funds was a reason why they opoposed it. But we are talking about 
some staff people that they had cut. 

Ms. Waku)ER. Just a few years ago in this administration. 

Ms. OAKAFi. If they just put back the staff that they cut, they will 
be fine. And it is a few thousand dollars. 

Our last witness— and we certainly are happy to have you here 
as well— is Ms, Cynthia Denton, who is the general counsel for the 
National Association of Government Employees. 



ERJC ^. ■ 25j 



250 



ERIC 



STATKMENT OF CYNTHIA DKNTON, (JKNKRAL ( OINSEI. FOR TIIK 
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES 

Ms. Denton. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. My 
name is Cynthia Denton. I ah\ general counsel with the National 
Association of Government Employees. We are an affiliate of the 
Service Employees International Union. We are vei^ pleased to 
have this opportunity to present our views on the Pay Equity Act 
of 1984 and the Federal Pay Equity Act of 1984.. 

The NAGE, which represents employees in all sections of public 
service, strongly supports the efforts to create pay equity represent- 
ed by both H.R. 4599 ^d H.R. 5092. ^ v , 

This legislation rejiffirms the Federal Government's responsibil- 
ity in 'enforcing^23y equity laws, encourages employers^to comply 
with those la^^Tand brings Federal wage-setting practices into 
compliance witf^xisting law. 

We would lik^^o address bur remarks this afternoon to two 
areas: First, the failure of the EEOCTto enforce the existing laws in 
the area of pay equity as demonstrated by a complaint filed by the 
NAGE in Boston. 

Second, the failure of the Federal Government to address pay 
equity problems within its own work force. 

The NAGE represents a unit of over 10,000 clerical employees 
working for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

The Massachusetts experieiice/ for these working women has 
been no different from that (wworking women nationwide. In a 
review of the Commonwealth's employment practices in 1979, the 
Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination found that 75 
percent of the State employees in the lowest job grades were 
women, while over 80 percent of the male employees were found in 
the three highest job grades. ^ 

This inequitable job grouping is a result of legislation which, 
prior to the establishment of public sector collective bargaining set 
the salaries of all State employees. \^ 

Clerical workers obviously occupy the lowest divi^kwis of the gen- 
eral service scale. 

A comparison of the two salary structures approved by the Mas- 
sachusetts Legislature in 1948 shows that the lowest paid common- 
laborer in the State made a wage comparable to a grade 45 in th^ 
general service scale. In recognition of the comparably poor pay 
scale of clerical employees in the State, which continues is date, 
the National Association of Government Employees filed a class 
action charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Oppor- 
tunity Commission claiming that, among other things, the Com- 
monwealth has created and maintained a classification in salary 
system which has discriminatorily compensated certain positions 
normally encumbered by females to the lower job groups for no 
other reason than because of the sex of the incumbents. 

The charge has been before the, EEOC since August 1981. The 
only action on that case in 2V2 years of which we are aware has 
been^ a 2-day on site investigation by an employee of the EEOC 
New York Office. , ^ * 

The EEOC has demonstrated an attitude of outright indifference 
to cla^ims involving pay equity. 

■/ 

or . * • 

^ J4 , ^ . 



251 



ERIC 



The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in June 1981 in the Gun- 
ther V. County of Washington case, cleared the way for pay equity 
cases to be filed under title VII without meeting the requirements 
of equal wbrk contained in the Equal Pay Act. 

While a number of pay equity cases have been successfully won 
tor employees in the Federal courts since that time, to our knowl- 
edge, the EEOC has,yet to decide a case based on the principles of 
pay equity and comparable worth. 

^2^^ ^"r^Ti^f. discrimination is being referred to the Washington 
^[.An u IrtrMpmentation for decision apparently since the 

hEOC has no clear standards for review in these cases. 

The agency, which ought to be at the forefront in enforcing the 
federally mandated policy of equal pay for work of equal value, has 
taken no action to establish case law in the area of pay equity. 

The decision not to enforce EEOC laws in the pay equity area is 
a political decision, and its remedy is also political. 
,.r6t,^ experience in seeking relief before the 

EEOC, the NAGE applauds H.R. 5092, which sends a clear message 
to that agency to take swift action on pay equity cases. 

The NAGE also represents large numbers of employees in the 
Federal Government. Historically, the Federal Government led the 
„ way in the hiring of women, but,- unfortunately, has also led the 
way in the intentional payment of discriminatory wages. ■ 

When women first entered the work force in large numbers 
during the Civil War, period the Federal Government led the way 
m their employment by giving preference- to widows of war veter- 
ans. However, it also led the way in setting women's wages at a 
discriminatory level. 

Today, women in the Federal Government are paid less than 
men because of a classification system which is biased against the 
skills, responsibilities, and duties of predominantly female jobs. 
The Federal Govermment must reverse this trend and take the 
lead in the payment of a gender neutral compensation. These bills 
are a vigorous step in that direction. 

Both H.R. 5092 and H.R. 4599 direct Federal agencies to rid 
themselves of the discriminatory wage setting practices. 

H.R, 5092 requires the EEOC to conduct a study in consultation 
with federal employee organizations, on the procedures used to 
evaluate Federal practices, and whether those procedures comply 
with pay equity law. 

H.R. 4599 require^OPM to submit to Congress a study on wage 
setting practices, and' wage differentials, and to develop a proposal 
on equitable job evaluation techniques, and to specify and take 
those steps needed to correct the problem. 

The NAGE endorses both these bills as a sound and equitable 
measure which will help identify and correct the bias in wage set- 
tyig oractices. 

Wfe would like to thank the committee again for the opportunity 
to present our views, .and look forward to working with the com- 
mittee in the passage of these important pieces of legislation. 

[The statement of Ms. Denton follows:! 

^0 0 



252 



S 

> Ti::";'L>\,r:v 

THf: NAT^()^•Al, Aj^s'Vji^i/v'; n.^v op (■(n;KK^;^'l•:^^;• i:r'i'r..'.vi:i:s 



v.!;icl^ IS .iT; tf t 1 I 1 i.'tr t!..' lUTVU-i t::-|-loy» 1 !M t r.,i 1 

i;nif>n (Ari.-t-' I')) i t.l(.,{sci-» [.o lavt? tlii.; : i " >i t hi. 1 1 v l j ■ rx'i-.i.'iit. 
our vi.n;s on l!;c' P.iy Kcuilv .-^-t. of l^'H.; =m/K!) .m.i I'r.^' 

t 

■ <imi \U> 1 1': . L-.l.it ion vr.ior. r-t;.- 1' i m; t l^f ^i('oi\W o( ^vu r nr riU '.ii 
r<.MUu)ns 1 L i 1 1 1 y ii-. rntM^rir^* '''\\' o<*uity ^u-.-, .no-. .;ir.i«K- 5. 
('rt>loVors to i-(M">}v V I t!; t:.cr.-.f Um,:. / i>r w..-.. S'>U- m! .»oi. 
?;etlimi \ :;\to oo: : ] ):u-i< vit.!; .'xisfi:-: ^ 

r.oii'; i ass.ii't^ oT the- rivil 'M'lyt.i ;<:[, x 

di scr i:!- in Jt io:: still "ovv.:\-s t.*a- >w t t. = ■ CCi'-r- 

r,.it ior. practi^:c::; of (Hir iMt -.oi^j; i rivMt."* .mu^ T i:i>l:o /..'(-ti^- 
« oru)-loy(:Oii . r-.'MiriM. 'rat^.c-rcf! by a ::coi o oi rittcront i.t-iti::- 
,tic-i.ins r <.-vo<il tl-.jt. v;t,>;* .,«n aro :;rcj rt'.M t c. 1 intf^ S-v (A-.ir. ci-.;' 
ujhs, l*':-\ilO' 1 1'.a t (m! "Jf^l r, >.ro oa»;i s;ui i M <■.':• t 1 t !.-.r. 

thoir cont'd I (• v.-i'iifs I a!>'_'C on Uio skill:;'! <lut .*r;.i rc:;-on- 

sibilitU'S of tic M;bs. i r-osuM o^ this J'i sc- r ; : ;i n. ■ t i < ! i 

■ x.c-ron r-ako 'ar- .i r'oror I i onat u s.' .m " s'f ov.ir r'svt i ' >!i ' :". ^'Ooi . 
r:f f<'ir tn by unK>r\?; «ir.(i oLlirrs to ^Kldrtsa-. llav;*.* slm u>u: ■ 
prctbloip.s tiavo boon f rust.ratcfl by. tl.^' failaro tl.o L:<M;.n 
Fn'".)! 0'M"on t oo^.oi t ui\ i t y CcMfr i ss iqu t.(^ fullfiljf \ I :■ t «■ t.ua m y 
r:an(K L'.'. ^ f 

, Sox 5u.'oru(iat ior. m or'' 1 oyi'cn t in tr.t' linitc' St.^usi r. ^ 
IM.T vasi v(' . Ai:coi (liiiu> lo b>^^l :nir<^au o^ bab-or :;t .^t ; i c.s , 

of all fcr^.ile oinplovcer; .ivc in '-os i t i chis th.if V<'*V i.-orc» 
tb.-n two for'alc^s t () ovory r;..'lo. of all ralcr. V''.i> m ^. 

lobr. vhic*b are r.oro tbaivLV; t.(i oih* tlju'M' ('vi; <'<'r.''.'r. "f t'li^.' 
400 positions listavi. by Ibi- bot^uLrt^nt of b7ib(»r , ■■') ' <i 1 1 
wonon \'ork in or^ly occuua t ion<5 . I il ~fact (;vcr ^ 
cnH)love(» v.on'cn v.'ork in socrL'tarial aini clerical fio Id^' in 
tbo r>t?cretar ia) field, worsen accmirt for over of all 

^' eninloyoes vith sirjilarily lar':e Copccntra^l ion ^^n c )»or a t:a 1 , 

nursimi and clean inn t)03 i I K'^ns . ^ ' j . . 

♦ - 



ERIC 



V- • -250 - • cjorf ww'^*''^ 




/ 

'ERIC 

/ 



35-003 0-84-17 



254 



General i'rancir, I'.li.u; t;tMnnt*r v.^t^'U 1uv^^>»m*'^ " ^'-i'm, ^•.in 
Lis«» sciiisors b('tL(M- tlian ii nan, sl.v* \. i 1 1 *•<» it tl.t a: * ■ i" . 

I van I to (?r.t)loy v.'oi-cn In cut "rriMjairy ^v*tos." '•'o{--m'. wtrt' 
th^.Mlofor<^ proforrcd for tl.o lt)\;-rvov i n*' , r.onijl t.iskr; i^•>^•ml;^• 
thOv-v/(?rt» naid ii-oru Lh.ui 'jO t^'>*r C(MiL of tiic \..^:(*s r .iu'^ 
t.o ':*Ji\, 

'Ahilu thr U.'flrral (U)vornt' (Ma < Hi r 1 1*'" Ll". i t, t !u> 

v.iyir! (»:rploy^n" v/op'cn, <^i\'um' r.*r(' 1 orciuc t:.o . v a : ' \ ■ i ■ ' v.:* 
am.' f;hiUlr(»ri of soldiers k i 11 o<i in r:i(:tioi^. , i* .• 1 It i.! tii'.i 
way 11^ sottinn v/acu»s at. ,\ •! i scr pci i*at or y l^'V^l. Ifr fXarTlo, 
in 1866 Conuross sut Iht* .-.a 1 ar m's »^r !o:alo rli-jr.s -.rvi (*o:yisi 
r.t $')00 a yoar v-lulo at Mu' sai-.r t. i r e Dai,^! :;or. tit.i:,<: .-irilar 
'.;ork 01200 to CIPOO ;yr yc'r, Tl:o s.'lari^^s oj \ ':'.':\ 

hiri.*'! /ir, t.orfU)r.i ry clorkii for the MoTi.-i rt.r oi-t f \y.y:ty d-'v,- 

craL i'ninnor's urt^Lr^a v;oro .ill(U(,'d a r;.T:-. i ' 'u;^ c-T S^iOO * er 
yoar v;hi.le th(»ir '-^a lc» ctnintonvirts carruv.i $lJOO.to ? 180(1 hcm' 
yr r)thor r^ubl ic j;oct.or aiui ;>riv<it^' ^■ocl^.)!■ or:^loyfu*s t.ooi: 
ttu'i-r Olio fror* Lbo fj'dorjl tiovoriM ont <'.n.' bo'-KUi \a,ii.^' a 
dnal r>av scalo in M*os(» w>hs \'l oro wircn v.'Mc r^'t^ m ? i i.< 
f it to \jc oi'*ployof! - 1 tlit* h-i'. ' tjayip'- t'^'a^! ;<.l.^i vlori' 

v (.); -..'rt ror.a 1 n conccMit ra tod t/x'ay. , , 

Ti.o Supropic Court hold ovvr il.irty ^'\'ars a-^o thai 
sooro'^at ) o[\ a nd „t'oua 1 i t v caiuiot c(J-o*y.ist i tdio K!iu':.\irk 
r^'.nr ')f Prc^v/ti V. I'.o^ird of i'.daicat lor^ . 'I'l.o ria^ rvM- .'oi^n 
f 1 tu' 1 r<' th.ot- sof ' ro(i<n t icjn is nVif: or^.L 1 y laiofjual a; 'd los* a 1 so 
to SOX d. I scr" 1 ra na t itjn in th<> v.of ktM aco . /■ sv'X i< -^a t od 
lob stjructiiro ti t s toi i c^i 1 1 y Ia'-scmI on .ui irolioit c'lssoi- i on 
of f ora 1 c inferiority is violative of tr.o i^rin^'iple of etualiiy. 
l-nf ortuna tod y t>ff6rt.s by unior^.^i' an(! otfiors +<j (Iv^volof. aud. 
(Miforco Otw eouitv hnvo hc*oi^ si.*V(.»r<,*lv hanivM'e(^ by t !-o ■'••.^'•an 
Ad:^in ist ration. Under t la* curfent .'.d:- 1 im st r.'t i v. * !.o V!'" i." 
b.as ftiilinl to take any action t.o (»nfo!c-(r n.iy e'-iMly la'.;» I'l'v 
bbOC luis abandor^od it.s rifision L(i U-'O. its expertise i.o develoD, 
ctiuca^e, and onfv^rcc* tl^o lav m 1 1. i r. complox arocj. 

An exanf)lo of the ^':KMC ' s nealoct.cap be* illustrated frori 
4 complaint NACJK filcni on behalf of the stat o er.td oyec^s 
v;orkin'^*in clerical f>ositior\s in tbt* cnr'no'n-.'C'a 1 tl- o* ''assa- 
chu^iotts. ^ 




^' 255 0 

\ 

The* ycissach.u,sotts oxoor it»>ico for x.-orkini 
unfbrtunatcly bt-u.^n no clifforc»nt t\uu\ t.ii.U n( v;u::\t u.iL i on-v,'i cK' , 
In a rcviou- of the Cor'.ronwca 1 Lb ' s oruloyrenL prac*t icor, m 19 70, 
.the yassachuset Ls Con.n'.iSK ion Acairmt in sri' 1 1- 1 n«i t ion loun,^, 
that l^jt of L } ' o state c» np 1 o vo o s in th c\ I ( v. ;o fa u) I . era -.i r, 
v/ero v.'or«jn v/hilo. ovor HO. ot t ho nalo crvloyci'.s wvk f<>i;r.<? 
in the thrue hiohc»sL lob (t r <^U! i iki.s , .-"^ rw n.>v. o\ lovest 
•job rra.les in yassachi;.sc' L t .; and tl^» U)l' tiLlO^:; '.'it'-, ii; t.I:v')Sc' 
orounincs shor the exttMiL of the r-robUvv lOr l,:,(jOO slate 

el erica I er'f) I oyeus : jv. elcrk atvl tyrMst - <:ivuiv' ■', , 

ir. elork and stenociraph^r - lub firade 1, senuu eU'ik <in<' 
tyiust - Tob (Tra.U' 1, si-nior cNt! aiv^ .stcnc^nr.-.i !.v«r -'';;u- 
ar.ide B. I r\ ccn- :>a rab I e >ol^ era^ici; .ire fa I ('-« 'or i n ir. t , i:':^- 
iikillecl e(;sitions such, as General han:l v:; an- u>l^ 'tr.'-e ""i , ""x^ 
storeroop: Jieloc-r - lob -ir^c'e 0, labort/r - ci a.-(> \ 

This in('';u I Liible loL eroiinirKi .^h^nr' tr.i.- Cv rr < ! i ii^ 

r-nnuin salari^^s, is a result of leeisl.itK^n \ li lul. , , i r lur to \ 
the establ i:-,h:'>(M;t of publie su'CtcM" c.-o I 1 o^t i \'»' ba rv' > ; r i ru: , s.M 
thf salaries ot all statf e- o 1 ovoo s. . \\)v ■ m < m :m /a t. i . n,i! 
i'urr)()ses , tb»' v( r.-. fc^rci.- va:i <'ivi<.U'v' iiUo :,^'rvier" <•:. t 

"<:c!ier<il jjorvic-.*. " Cloi ual v.i>;ke:'s, <^f coursi', -.rc-i-uM; tb.- 
br.xest <»:visioi.s 6{ 1].^: "U-r.eral s.(*rvu;e. / co- v .:ir i (^! 
the two salary :;t.ru(:tu:cs An.;.rovis! by t b.' ^'.^.ss iclus>.-t. t s, - 
slature in shovs It at the lo'..('st ;^.i\<^ e(jr:u :; lab-aor 

in the state rra-.le a v.^ure cor ridi-abl e to rir,^'^' 1 • > iv tic ^-ericral 
servient.'. 

In rccof'iu t uai of tbf c^or- !ja r b I '^i oca- i-.y ;■,(*<<!.• ot eleriCiU 
erf'l'oyo'os in this :;laL«-, l};o v.jtw^Pal /Vss^>c i .a v;r, of (ovr.in- 
r-eiit Kr^ployees f i I o(' a ebiss-*ict. ion CIsuct' of Im ser ] i^- 1 r:<. t i ( v.:lh 
^^the boual bp>: » I (U'i .(^nt ^ a^ner t. 'in i t v To:- :■ i s.s i ' ri c 1 i;- ; r.<: f.ba*'^^ 
arond r^h.er thirvrs, the (.'c;?- y ( a^'. (>,-, 1 M- ^.as ('-c-.t.' .-^i^.: -■Mr^tairm' 
a c 1 ass 1 f 1 eat ior> arv' salary sister \;h,ic!-. has ■.! i :(:r ; ^ w'-'t i 1 y 
cor»)eiisalei! certain t^oj; i t k;:):-; porrally (.u:eu:-,l r r( : '••y f^e-.^b-s 
to th.e lo\,-er 'u>b <:rouos for' no (Jtber r<'asor* tb.^r. bi'craaise ol" 

A 

the sex of th.e cnu.-upben t r, . 

, The charcie filcH? on beh/i I f of v.-,.;sachu.sot ts cIoruMl 
en.pl oyees hav> been bef(u e thi» i;';ual ? ■ 1 ov: f ( - or t. uii j t 



ERIC 



5 J . 



256 



Conuiission since AuclisL , I9g I . 'I'ho only action oil that .-ar.e i p. 
•two and a half years qt" v/hictj, v;o are aware* hlw^ bavu a tv.o (l.iy 
on-site inves tico t ion .by an ciT^r>loyce of the Now York office. 
If the experience of other comolaints is sir.ilar to tt^at of 
the NAGF. then it shows an attitude of hesitation i\ n(.>t. 
out.rKjht indifference to c lairs involvjijicj tjay ciuity which, 
ouaht to be swiftly corrected. 

The (decision of the l.'iuted'Stfites ;*u;)re^'o Court \v. June, 
19 81, in the ^1HL^J-S''_'^_^'^ • County of ^.'arJui 1^ > n case cleared 
v/ay for Day ecuiity cases to be filed with the l'(^ual i;:Ti*doy- 
r.eiit Oo;)ortunity fofp.mission v/ith.out n'.eetinc thi^ ref;u i roi;*er.ts 
of equal v/ork contained in the Keual l\iy Act. ^-'hiU' a ^ 
nur'ber of nay ocuiity cases I'.avr been f^\u:c('>;r,.f u 1 1 y ^'op. lor 
•epr loyees in the federal courts since th.at tii-e, to our 
kn(jv/led<fe tl^e L:(:ual Kmnloyn'ent onoortunity c'orrusiwon ha^; 
yt^t to decide a case based on the orincirviKs of nay ecrujty ^ 
<iiu' corrrujrabl e v/orth. Our Charue of Di scr i n.ina t ior. i.s l>CMr.u 

r 

referrc}d to thi^ Washinnton Office of Policy Ii-td enen t a t i (.->n 

f(.)r ciecision.s since the? Koual i:r\p 1 oyi;en t (^pr>or tu n i ty Cosi-.i i on 

'has no clear standards for rcviev of tha'i;e *cas^s 

Ter.norary (uiitU.dines v;cre i£;sucd by th.e ;-,uuaI :r d (jyi' tMit 
orjoor t uii i ty Commission shortly after th.e iiiinJ.-l'L*:!; decision, 
and c'xtcMuicd beyond their oriniiuil 90-day life. li-)V/ever , no 
aiu>arent action j^ias been taken by the Knual i*r .r^l oyr^ent Cioportuni 
Coipri sij ion , the aacncy vhich o.unht to. be at the f<-)re front in 

'cnf orci r.f- the federally r-apHa'tcvi policy of cMual :-a/ for v.ork 
of e<tual value, to e^Uablish case lav* in the area of pay e^'uity. 
If reeuxrod by this leeislatic^n to review all r hm'.''. i p.n ch.a r^>es 
and to ref>ort to the apf>ropriate (*onn rt^ss v)pa 1 r>uh-\'<>prM t feels 
on their status as v;ell as to take adiTii n i nt ra t i \'e action to 
enforce the policy c 1 ear 1 y. (^nunc i a t ed in H.H.- 'oO')?. , th.« Kpual 
rp^ployrnent Opportuinty CoiT-issicn r^ay ben in to avB''u:-<:' its 
proper v'l/<a(;ership role (\pd provide a necessary f(;rur.i fcjr .t!:t| 
resolv^tion of nay ef.juity charc^er. . 

' Th.e decisic)n not to efiforce KKoV' 1 av/s ip th-.' nav eouity< 
area is a t)olitleal (U^ei^^,ion and i t reredy is also tjolitical. 
As a party with soir.c^ experience in S(.*ekin(j relief be'.orc- tl^e 



ERIC 



2bo 



257 



Ki:(K\ .VACK applau.is IIR 5092 w}j irh scii<^i. cUmt !• oi.t,;.,. :r Co 
that aaoncy to take- sv;ifl acLu.n on .ill va- ^•>iult.y c.;:.oi;. 
MR 5092 rcidiroctf, the KKfH; tovMrc^ii acorn-n 1 i i ro its .;t a t i.:atorv 
■. niiision of nrovrciuu, loc}-.iuc\il auirlancH.. and or^ ! ore : :,^,y 

oouiLY laws, ThTs looislation oncour-.-c-us tlo ;r,v-ML,. 
vacos h<#^'d 'on v.-orth n.),i. s. - , .,na to oH-uMto tl.- r i;i 1 ir or^ 
SOX discrimination. Th.. i:i:oc is dirccM.oO to i.\'nti?v d i 
cr i:^inatoi-y wao.. r^ractircs and to t^ravio,^ c\ir;«'r ts;;; ^ 1 1 >; 
the rosults of a st#]y on i\u: nunbo-;, naturo and h.^-.f wmi o! 
. all chanios. 'I'ho i:on.. rl:::onl r,.d,or and t Ia- ,MtnM^- 



, Oencral arc sir-Mlarily dvroctod 1% fnllfiH ti. i r s t , t ^i.- loi v ^ 
rol oii in May i" mu t y . 

Th*- ^:A(■i: also rci<roiiunls larf^*- nurifrs of ^ 1 ( 
in th.o fudcral c'oViM-n:-.eaL. llistorioaUy tdu- :'o.=.m-.>1 >s>vorn- 
r<4ni Ic^d tho way iv. iho hiLino of wc^-.-n, but Jn f or tuna t o 1 y 
ha:; also led v/ay in^iu' inLvntior;al o.,yrv(a of d i so r i r ; na t r y 

wa<u's.' Th.> t,,;,., ,1 ,.,nvrn:i-nL rsst r<-vo:;s.- that t so'd and load 
in the; r:...yr.,.f,t ^, ri,u;d,.r r;outral cop r , >r sa : i <>n . ' "i.-so 

hills at;- a V :t:or(?iis :;to' in t ^ .;t iii.^ct i--. 

;--M-.'at :'.s .o; ! disorir Lnatl.-n m t; r,. .; 
aov.-rn:-..-,t" is .-t !,v:M as ^..-rvasivo ..s m tl.- s<.-tr.r. 
m Lho td-ae Of.Il.M- fi >M ovw-r 'JO . of a'l ♦<-d-».v: Ionmm :; 

ti" i;oll<;r aroa *,f U :\.\.r.U 

v;ork<^rs ar.> va.r.-n. /-Irost .!/ 1 of ^-do^.^ly . : : Inv,'d vv.:-,>n - 
wvk 111 v)hs vi'ich aio t.\ o t.> rsv *'.:-aic. : !. ; i * \ 1 j-^ » 
.V3 of tho ron wor^: : r, >r.:,:; r:,r. tv.^. f. r^n-' 

pair, ••■onen ciMdsr-,;,! bv , r,„i,M-al o* ^vo rr;- . t t s. o r. -o^ t.ro 

into <i srall ni:i-l:.r ot w.i , <: . , ^,^.I<■ ^^'mant (.Is; 

aro r.aui l<;sf; than thoi: t : lu^ v-a'th and s mtx ^ i d, sH y l.-ss 
tJan sirilar T>os:tioris 1 d' ir,;- ; n,-.nt 1 y b- '-al-s. Ty.. 

avoraoe Ss-ale in fo()era: s-tvioo o n h:; (^-1'- hi'. Na .'vrr v 
dollar (sonoa by a :..al<>f Wo:-w^n ;n tho ftAw^r.'! s. )r < c-o^ant 
4(jr tUn v.i.-.t r.,l;or]ty ( . f f od,,^!,,; 1 f.v.r . ] (;y, .o"!},.. I^.v^s-t 

f<-'oral..^T..dos. ovor SO <,f ^,..!..jal v» it,- r .^v v -ron • 

are i,>n-'doyod m orad(ni niu- thrr^uoh nnv.. j^y or' rar json 

^''•'V ^'^^ ^-f'^- t^^M^l porMilat4.on\s in mi-.^s-s osc> Ihrounb 

n I ni' . , • M ' 



er|c 



V. 



26i 



•6 




258 



I- or en arc OcUil los;; thin "> i; ri*c*ui.'U' n !" , cl.i;..; i: ..-jt 
•systen vh. i<;h i.s-bui:;»nl .pj.ur^st r ru^ i;)-; i 1 1 s , ri-;;v i b : ! i l. 1 1.' 
cUk! duLu-.; of t)ro(ion i r\MU ! y VtM'M h' iol^s. Vbo. 'i- 'i.< • im 1 
schcH'.ule cl/iris 1 1 I Crft 1 t)n syr.tt'n \.'rni {,>i mm rui l I y • l» o' ^ ' i 
th.roudli Class i f ic.it ion .-ot. oi P)^M. It. 

Di t ict.Hiviit? VMS OS t.iM 1 s1k-< ' f'tu- <• 1 a ss i t «' i i^'' 
of. IP •■:tM«U»s, '!'hi:; (l.S. ( ■ 1 a s^*i i ^ i oa t I * -.n ^;ys. { 
at a Liro'v/J:on v.Mf^o Ij/is**.! s-'/ f ' i ;'.oi'i r* i na t i . 
^ j. r.u" t J (av! . l-is-.alo.i wtM c ri-looatol to a f.-'.v ro;,; 
I nt oiiL i(.)na I 1 y. o.i id a 'lo{;stT i;ahii"y t tuu; Mor rait 
r.ololv hecau'.'.o of \m^v ncjrlor. 'I'h.o li t a n. ia rti 5 or 
Ll)0 (Trador. hia.s lu-oi; i n f t.t.H*, I y tl;i:; .-.tt'.tis^^ 

Tr. IV^V; Llif r-on«'ral 1:. ■ Va ! -a a s :uar-t i !' : ^ ■■ *. 
ol a factor c'vaiuat ion systt?:-. l'!::^ 'loos r.ot 

ar-oivi tlu- standardri usod f oi-^ d.ot or:-, nu i-.'' t.l » ■ i:; a ^'s. Ai; 
conclu<iod by a rc;ti«>nal /"caf'i-ry :jcit't:cos !■»■• o» ♦. , tho 11:^ 
(ioos iiothi^Hi v'on) t hafi s, tar.' '.a rd i /< • (thro\;ol. i.s*- o! factor 
foir.t-S) tho c 1 af.s i f" 1 c:a t loti i.tandard.s. 'I'lu- 1^^ ^'ra-ity; ar^' !o!t 
intact and y^o is the orocrcduro lOr r/ikino crado a ss X'sr-va :; 
In Lho filxLy nlus yoars si net* Mi.. 'M:;s<!Or nf t-.,- . " 1 .o . s i ^ i c. • o ^ 
-;ot , tho st<uidar(?s bJivc not ,^o* it i >(- 1 abd y cban*''^: ''iavs* tb.;t 
S('X*idti^4^V imi na t ion is pnv; irtdicit r.Ulior ui lic.i. 
Tho fciils to objectively as:;cs.-> tl.o vahio !-o:,*t tor-ale 

)«')bs V)C'C'^uso iL rt.'lic's on «.a 1 lu? iu<}oon\"*nt s <uul st>Mid<irfb; 
<.ievo loocd fifty years atjo, 

Tbe federal ooverfirK-nt rust be a loade^ i i^. 'a*/ <M'uity. 
t-otb. li!' S09;^ and IIR direct fedr-ral adenc i . • t (; rid 

thcTse I ve:; of d i r;c:r i I'U na t o^y \.ac:(* settictr ick's-. 
HI' '>092 ri.Muiiros tbe bbOC t() C(>nduct a study \i\ consa; 1 t 1 1 loa 
witli fed.«-ra] c-nobiyof orcan i zat i ons on tbe pr;K>wdi:res 
usec^ to evaluate federLil nracLices ar.(' vdu'tber tles.c' rroet^duit? 
cc)nol.y v.-itTi eciu.il t>ay for e<iu<i 1 ^ \.'ork lav/5i, HJ^ A'}')*-) icH;uires ' 
OPy to^iubmit to C'otuiress a study nt\ v;a(te settiri'T oraot.ices 
and v/a<Te d i f f ererit i.<! 1 s and to de\i;(";l(^p a proposal on et;ui table 
job evoluatic)n technicjues an^l to sf>eciiy tUid take st(?t.-s 
needed to correct the problem. 



NAC-b (>ndoreses both Hf^ ^091^ and HP as. .i s^> ;nl -uid 

eoviitable measure} wl^^cli wM "b he Ij^ i den t i f y an' car<-rf. tbe 
bias in v'cine sc^ttirui practices in tho feWeCcVl (fovcr r.f <'nt . 

Ml 

v;e'v;ould 1 I'ke to thank the Co-nm t tc'^e once r.ore for t b(? 
opportunity to. F>re.s'6nt our viovrs ori thi5; ipt)(.)rtarU t(;'nc. 
Vie iwok forv/ard to working vitb, the Chair and C*oPMnittee m 
pass inq 'this innor'lt\nt Lc(U 1 a t ion > 

■ ■ i 




259 



Ms. Oakar. Thank you very much for your fine te^stimony. And I 
want you to know how important your testimony is for our record. 

I was struck by the pcrint that Cheryl made in her testimony 
about poverty in old age. We haven't even touched on that. But it 
is true that if you're paid inadequately when you're younger you're 
bound to be poor when you're older. We have some laws in the 
books related to pension and social security that are inevitable 
also. ^^s. 

It's a real catch-22 situation. We could make an entire heanl 
out of fringe benellt. 

Our interest is not only for women in the work force who are, 
let's say. young to middle age, but for older women as well. We 
know that to be old and female today is to be alone and poor. Sev- 
enty percent of our older women are poor. 

It has, in part, something to do with the manner in which 
they're treated when they're younger, doesn't it? 

So. Van glad that you mentioned that, Cheryl. 

I guess nurses are almost the classic example that everyone Used. 
I was an educator by profession. They used teachers. And then they^ 
used service enflh^loyees. You really represent a spectrum o£, Che^ 
classic examples of wage discrimination. ^ - . 

How important are nurses? I think we should establish this for 
the record. I've always had a nurse on my staff, by the way, be- 
cause of all the health issues that arise. So I know they're very'ver- 
satile. 

But how important are nurses to the health detfvery system? 
What would we do if^^e didn't have nurses In the health delivery 
system? 

Ms. AcoKi). I think the health delivery system would probably go 
down the tubes if we didn't have nurses! 

In the first place, nurses comprise the largest health related pro- 
fession m the United States. We have 1.7 million nuj^es. 

You're absolutely right about nurses being a classic example. I 
was' struck this morning by a nuoiber of people who either refer- 
enced nurses, or there was a nurse testifying for AFSCME, who is 
also a nfemher of our organization. But it ift a classic example. It's 
somethmg that we've been* fighting forever and even. 

Ms. OakaiL I don't' think there's a person in the room that gets 
health delivery, or anyone who is older and stays in nursing homes 
that doesn't depend on that provider. 

You know, I used to teach at a community college- in Cleveland, 
and I remember when we had career days some of the male stu- 
/:ients telling me that they'd love to go into>the nursing professions 
but that they knew that it wasn't going t« be paid adequately be- 
cause it was a so-called female dominated situation. 

So we do discourage men who want to go into traditionally 
female occupations as well, don't we, by the stereotype of that 
wage gap. . f 

Ms. AcoRi). Absolutely. 

Ms. Oakar. C^heryl, you represent service employees, and clerical 
workers. I know^ in my own case, when I was elected a Member of 
Congress I didn't realize that in order to put forward my work I 
really needed tojbrm quality offices, one in the district, and one in 
Washington. I remember that the hardestkposition to fill was the 

O 



2Sj 



260 



secretary. And I've come to realize that the focal poiiU of the t^Tice 
is that secretary. If you don't have a good secretary the office will 
not operate efficid.ntly. 

'I was struck by the fact when I looked over the wages how poorly 
secretaries are paid compared to someone who is a legislative as- 
sistant, and so on, and so forth. 

It must be difficult to encourage people to stay in clerical posi- 
tions, isn't it? 

* Ms. Wainwri(;ht. Very difficult. It's very difficult, but at the 
same tinie women who are dominating in those professions really 
like it. Tney see ^\s a way of opportunity for incjl^asing their skills. 

Say, for instance, you may have a secretary who works in a hos- 
pital, for instance. She may work for four doctors. And those doc- 
tors may be classified in different fields, and she has to relate to 
their medical terminology. But based on because it is a female 
ghetto-type job her wages are lower. And here she may be working 
for four prof^sionals whose pay scales range from anywhere be- 
tween $r)(),()00 to $70,000 a year, and she's making 12 to 111 

I find that— you find that secretary, that clerical is very loyal. 
She works very hard. She's willing to work through lunch hour. 
She works overtime. But at the same time is very stressful for her 
economically to secure her family, and at the same time continue 
to work through that process, and fear for her job. 

Thank you. ^ * 

Ms. Oakar. You have a number of .employees of your. member- 
ship who are female obviously. Do you ha\e a number who are 
head of the household? X 

Ms. Wainwright. I would say about To percent of the women in 
9:00 to 5.00 are heads of households. 

Ms. Oakar. What is the range of the salary that they bring in. 

Ms. Wainwright. Range anywhere between the salaries of 
$H,r)00 all the way up to $18,500. 

Ms. Oakar. One more question. It may seem facetious, but I 
think it's important to put it on the record. 

Do ^omen work because it's a luxury, or are they just bored? 
Why do Women work? 

Ms. Wainwright, Well, I personally work because I need shelter, 
and food, and I need to take care of my child. And at the same 
time I feel in this society, and in the United States, that everyone 
wants to secure those necessities of life, so, therefore, you must 
work. And if you don't have a husband, or a family background to 
support you, then surely you have to do it yourself one way or the 
other, whether you're a prQfessional, or service employee. 

Ms. Oakar. And just one 'quick poiprt for the -federal employee 
people, ' ^ ^ 

Yesterday when questioning Dr. Devine, I said, 'Tou know, in 
the white collar jobs the average male makes $27,800 and some a 
year, and the * average female makes $17,000, and that's after 
you've been working for a* while/' 

He responded by saying, ''Well, one reason for that is that 
women don't stay in the Federal labor forcef^as long. It was the 
' tenure that was the"— you're laqghing, but that's the answer he 
g^ve. 

Now, you're a career—. > . ; 




261 



Ms, Bi i^^oN. I have i^rryears. 

Ms. Oakak. How do you respond to his remark about ^on'ure*^ 

Would you say that's the No. 1 reason for- - ' / 

Ms. BiurroN. No, wonu^n conu^ in and out oi' thr work lorce, hut 
we lind that most women come-back into working for the Federal 
(V)vernment because of the pay arid the benefits. Kven though the 
pay may be lower in comparison to thl* males, but iu comparison to 
many ar^eas within the [)rivate sector, it is higher. 
\ we find women do rvtirv and would si;iv witfun the F(Hl(W'al 

iiovernmc^nt. Most of them do out between 55 and (iO And quit(* 
a tvw women \wv llnd do have 1^0, 2;",, and :\{) years of service. I met 
someone the ()th(>r day who had IT) year-s of service. 

Ms. Oakak. You may want to take a look at the statistic he ^ave 
I wanted to question it. but we didn't have that statistic. 

Ms. Burton. I plan to when I ^vi back t(; the office. 

Ms. Oakak. Th(^ last (luestion is. there's no rivalrw on this issue 
between men and women, is there'.' We have marriaK^s, and we 
have workin^^ spouses. Husbands don't like it too much if their 
wives ar-e discriminated a^^ainst. do they? 

Ms. AroKi), I think women and men work for the same reasons, 
jind I can't ima^nne why a man would not want ^woman to make 
* the .same salaries. Women work because they have to; because th(^v 
need a job; because they need the money to support themselves and 
their families; in or'der to Kain satisfactH)n fr'om their w^ork, and so 
for1h. I can't believe that it's a question of rivalry at all. 

Ms. Dknton. We repr*esent both men and women, ab^out oO per- 
cent r-nen, about oO percent women. We have found no difficulty 
within the union in supporting the issue of pay equity for women. 
It IS a matter that was endor'sed wholeheartedly by the entire con- 
vention. There is no division on this we've discovered as we pur- 
sued the matter. 

Ms. O/dAH, Well, I thank all of you vtny much for your testimo- 
ny. We rcM:ery happy to have you here, and thanks for your pa- 
tience. 

Our hist panel, and the Chair apologizes for the long wait, al- 
though we're glad that you didn't wait too long, is Mrs. Phyllis 
. Schlafly, who is the pr'esident of Eagle Forum and Mr. Lawrence Z. 
Lorber, who with the American Society for Personnel Administra- 
tion. 

•And the Chair at this time is going to ask unanimous consent to 
place the testimony of June O'Neill, who is the director of the Pro- 
gram of Policy Research of Women and Families, the Urban Insti- 
tute, in the record. 

[The statement of Ms. O'Neill follows:] 

F^HKrAKKi) Statkmknt ok Junk O'Nkill 

OoiiKresswornan Dakar and memhors of the committ(>t>, niy name is June O'Neill 
I am an economist and the Director of the FVogram of Policy Research on Women 
and Families at The Urban Institute in Washington. DC. I am appearing today 
. however, in an individual capacity and the views that f am expresmng are my own 
and are not necewsariiy the views of The Urban histitute or it.s sponsors. 

I would like to addres.s some concerns about the implications of a policy of "equal 
pay for jobs of corfi>orabie worth." The idea that prices or wages should reflect in- 
herent worth has had appeal over the agea However, practical consideratuJis have 
won out over philosojiliy. Wages are not intended to be value judgments. In a free 



262 



society they perform ihe crucial rutictions of "balancing supply and demand. Thus if 
the demand for eating out in restaurants rises, the wages of chefs rise and more 
p<»ople train to bt» chefs; and if F>eople stop' attending baseball games, the wages of 
bast»ball phiyers fall as does the incentive to become a player. Basically the system 
works, although it is not hard to fmd examples of market imperfections. For exam- 
ple, wages in certain industries or occupations may reflect unusual market power of 
a professional association or a union The way to correct this, however, is to address 
the market power directly, not to destroy the whole system. 

' Comparable worth would substitute wage boards for the market on the assumj)- 
lion they would be more fair. But who is to decide what is fair? Should education h^* 
the standard'.^ But some leave school early and learn on the job. Should unpleasant 
work bt» given special compensation? But who is to say what is unpleasant— is it 
devising detailed actuarial tables, lifting heavy objects, sitting at a desk all day, 
working nights and weekends? Without the market to process the scarcity of tal- 
ents, the tastes of individuals and demands of business and consumers, there is no 
good way to assign values — i.e. wages - to jobs. Invariably wage boards mulling over 
studies that are outdated by the time they are completed' and bowing to political 
fxressUres from all i^des will come up with a wage structure that does not reflect 
supply and demand. We will then be faced with shortages of workers in some areas 
and surplusvses in others, and the dilemma of how in a free society to induce work- 
ers to leave one occupatiop or area and take up another without wage signals to 
guide them. 

■With all this, comparable worth would not remedy the discrimination it is intend- 
ed to relieve. That case rests on the premise that occupational differences, between 
men and women are the result^f discriminatory barriers. While many factors other 
than discrimination have been shown to determine occupationaj differences there 
are certainly instances where di.scri mi nation has been a factor as well. The remedy 
for this discrimination, however, is to remove the barriers, not to change the wage 
signals that provide tHis^impetus for women (and men) to train or take other steps to 
enter these occupati(yhs. 

In sum a policy of comparable worth would be impractical, if not impossible to 
implement, would distort the functioning of the economy, and would ultimately fail 
to serve the best interests of women, ' . ^ 



Additional Prkfarkd Statkmknt of Junk O'Neiu. 

. The women's movements has long fought for equal opportunity for womerf^oppor- 
^lunilies for women to gain access to the schools, training, jobs and promotions they 
choose to\ enter, and on the same 'basis as men. These equal opportunity policies, 
however, generally accepted the' basic premises of a free market system. In fact the 
thrust was to improve the w^ the market functioned by removing discriminatory 
barriers that might reStrij>r the free supply of workers to jobs. By contrast, the 
policy of ^'comparable w^orth" rejects a market system where wages are set by 
supply and demand and seeks to substitute an administered wage system, where 
pay in different occupations woiitd be based on evaluations of intrinsic worth made 
by politically chosen groups. This would be a radical departure from the economic 
system we how have. Moreover, if jmplemented, it would lock women into tradition- 
al women's pccia)ations, and in the long run would work to their disadvantage. 

The ideaibehmd "comparable worth"— that wages should reflect the inherent 
value of th^ job\ather than the preiudices and greed of the markfitplace—is not 
new. At least as faX^back as the middle ages the concept of the "just price" has had 
some trppeal Practical considerations, however, have won out over philosophical 
musings. NoV»days. most people recognize how inefficient it would be to use an 
evaluation sciheme independent of th/^-^iarTTet to set prices of consumer goods, or for 
that matter lo set wages in pre^eminantly male occupations. So, for example, we 
accept a higher price for diarrrTTFids than for water, even though water is undoubted- 
ly more important to our survival than diamonds, and a higher wage for lawyers* or 
engineers than for clergymen or bricklayers, even though they may be equally 
Worthy and important to our survival. We do so because we recognize that consumer 
prices and .male wages will adjust to reflect supply and demand and that efforts to 
impede the process will only lead to shortages or gluts. 

' yfhy abandon the market 

The arguTnent for abandoning market determination of wages and substituting 
V*'com parable worth." where wage decisions w^d be based on an independent as- 
sessment of the 'Value'* of occupations, is based on the following premises: (1). TFte 



er|c\ 



or 



263 



pay Kap between women and men is due to Jiscrimination thai takes the form of 
occupational seKreKation. where women are relcKated to low payioK johs asd r>) nay 
in these female-dominaled occupations is low simply because women hold thim 
I will comment brielly on these premises. 

The pay ^up 

In Um, the pay Kap. viewed as Ihe ratio of women's to men's hourly payrwas 
about 7( percent overall. AmonK younKer Kroups the ratio is higher (and thli pay 
gap. smaller) ~a raUo of W percent for 20-24 year olds. 7<) percent for the aL'e/2r)-:M 
years old. .Among groups age lif) and over the ratio is Of) percent ' 

What accounts for the pay gap? (^learly not all differentials reHect discrimination: 
beveral minorities (Japanese. Jews and (\ihans for example) have higher than aver- 
age wages and I do not believe anyone would ascribe these differentials to favorit- 
ism towards these groups. j 

A growing body of reset^rch" has attempted to account for the gap. After adjustinL/ 
lor the different proxy variables that social scientists use to measure 'productivity 
differences, studies have explained varying proporti6ns of the Wage gap ^angin^ 
from almost nothing to almost everything. -Among those studies that' have used 
broad national samples, perhaps the central Hnding has been that about half of the 
gjip IS accounted for by a few key variables: schooling, years of work experience 
-years o^it ol ihe labor force, and job tenure. IV unexplained residual however* 
" cannot be taken as a measure of discrimination. It is more correctly described as a ' 
measure ol our ignora^nce. Work experiepce^ind qualit.ativt^aspects of schooling are 
usually measured crudery, and variables that may be important are omitted because 
Ol lack o( data. <.hief among these is the intensity and motivation with which a 
career is pursued. The intangible qualities that affect training, job searchjand iob 
advancement are likely to bt> related to the extent to which one*^s energies must be 
shared between homeVesponsibilities and a career. 

Although occupational segregation exi.sts. 11 is in large part the reAilt of mAny of ' 
the same factors that determine e^irnings: years of schooling, on-the-job training and 
Other human capital inv^istnient^. as well asHystes for particular job characteristics 
In a recently complet4»d ..study I found that nvomen's earJv expectations about their 
future life s work --that is. whether Moey planned to be a homemaker or planned to 
work outside the home-~are strongly related to the occupations they ultimately 
pursue. Many w^im^n- Who initially planned to be a homemaker. in fact became 
labor force participa/iUs, but they were much more likely to pursue st^^reotyped 
femalf occupations than women who -had formed their plans to work at younger 
ages^ harly oriemation inHuencOs early training and schooling decisions, and as^ a 
result women may be locKed into or out of certain careers. Another factor is that 
women ollen maintain a dual career—conabining work in the home with an outside 
job— and this leads to an accommodation in terms of the number of hours that 
women work and other conditions that influence occupational choice 

Women nnd men were also found to differ sharply in the environmental charac^ 
tehstics of their occupations. Women are less likely to be in jobs with a high inci- 
n^T^^ w^^Wl^"''*^' ""'^y ha/^rdous work or jobs requiring heavy lifting 
Ihese differerlKJmay reHect employer prejudice. I believe it i^ more plausible that 
they reflect cuPIBJal and possibly physical differences. 

.i}"" ^>%^^' wome(\'s occupations lower because employers systematically downgrade . 

ahem.>' Ihe ability of Hrms to wield such power is questionable. M a firm underpaid 
workers in women s .occupations, in the sense that their wages were held below 
their real contributions to the firm's receipts, other firms would have a strong in- 
centive to hire workers in these occupatfciis away, bidding- up the wages ih these 

. occupations. This process could only be t^ar^ed by collusion, an unrealistic pros, 
pt^ct considering the hundreds of thousanJRf firms. 

Implicationiy of a comparable worth policy' 

Any large scale implementation of comparable worth would likely be based on job 
evaluations that assign poi/its for^various factors believed to be common to disparate 
jobs. A job eva uation, however, is of necessity a highly subjective undertaking 
How, after all. do you compare high level quantitative skills with high level verbal 
skills or nurturing skills with administrative. skills? Different job evaluation com- 

' The commonly cited pay Kup- where women are said to earn 59 centB out of every dolltir 
earned by men -is based on a comparison of the annual earningH of women and men who work 
yearround and are primarily full-time. In VdWl this ratio was (i2 perronL This figure i« lower 
than the figure of 70 percent cited above because the annual earninga nieasure is not adiusted 
for differences in hours worked during the year. ^ 



ERIC 



^ or.. 



264 



niittees composed of individuals with different values will surely reach quite differ- 
ent conclusions. In fact it is doubtful if any two of us would rank occupations in 
exactly the sarnv way evfn if we fully understood what it takes to [>eHbrm each and 
every one of them— an impossible undertaking in itself. 

Without the market to process the scarcity of talents, the tastes of individuals and 
demands of business and consumers, there is no efficient way to assign wages to 
jobs. Invariably wage boards mulling over studies that ^re outdated by th^ time 
.they are completed, and bowing to political pressures from all sides will come up 
with a wage structure that diverges from underlying conditions of supply and 
demand. We will then be faced with shortages of workers \u some areas and sur- 
pUw^s. in others, and the dilemma of how in a free socie^ty to induce workdmj^ ^ 
leave one occupations^' or area and take up another without wage signals to guide 
jiiem. 

With all this, comparable vyorth would not remedy the discrimination it is intend- 
ed to relieve. While many factors other thah discriminatron have been sRown to de- 
termine pay differences, there are certainly instances where discrimination has 
been a factor as well. Thi« discrimination may take the form of barriers 'to entry • 
into particular fiivns or types of occupations and training. It can also occur between 
f women and men iri the same occupation. The remedy for this discrimination, howev- ' 
■er, is to remove th\ barriers, not to change the w£ige signals that provide the impe- 
tus for workers to train or take other steps to enter occupations w«ith strong 
demand. By mandating a wage for predominantly female occupations that is above 
what conditions of supply and demand would warrant, one is creating a- situation 
where queues of workers will be lining up for a shrinking pool of jobs. 

One final comnfcnt pertains to nursing. In much of the discussion of comparable 
worth the nursing profession is cUed as evtden^;*? that the market does not work. 
But facts are never presented. The bisic data on employment and earnings of 
nurses are as follows: Despite a perennial "shortage" of nurses that seems to have 
existed as far back as one can go, the number of nurses has increased dramatically, 
both absolutely and as a percentage of the population. In 19G0 there were.'28*2 regis- 
tered nurses per 100,()U() population. Hi 1980 there were 506 nurses per 100,000. This 
rate of increase is even more rapid 4han the incr>^se in doctors over the past decade 
and the supply of doctors has been rapidly increasing. Why did the increase occur? 
Were women forceck into nursing because they were barred from occupations like 
computer system^, arlalystsTThat does not seem to be the case in recent times. What 
has happened is that nursing along with other medical professions has experienced 
a large increase in demand since the middle llfeOs when Medicare and Medicaid 
were introduced and private health insurance' increased. As a result, the pay of 
nurses' increased more rapidly than in other fields. Between 19(50 and 1978 the 
salary of registered nurses increased by percent while the F^ay of all men rose by 
200 percent and the pay of all women rose by 193 percent. During the 1970s the rate 
of lay increase for nurses slowed, which is not surprising considering the increase 
in s%>ply. And entry of women into nuo^ing school has recently slowed suggesting a 
sejf-correcting mechanism is at work. Entry of women into medical school has 
soared, however. Women received only 8 percent of medical degrees in 1970j^In 1980 
they received 2'^ percent of medical degrees, ^ 

- These changes are taking place because of fundamental changes in women's role 
in the economy and in the family— changes that themselves reflect a response to 
rising wage rates as well as changing social attitudes. Pay set according to compara- 
ble worth would distort wage signals, inducing inappropriate supply responses and 
' unemployment. One cannot wave a wand and change the structure of wages because 
one wishes it to be that way without incurring adverse effects. If women have been 
discouraged bri#i|kty or barred by employers from entering certain occupations, 
the appropriate response is to remove the barriers, not try to repeal supply and 
emand. 

In sum, a policy of corpparable worth would be impractical, if not impossible to 
implement, would distort the functioning of the economy, and would ultimately fail 
16 serve the best interests of women, (Comparable worth is no shortcut to ^quality,* 

Me, Oakar, Ms. Schlafly, we're very happy to have you here, and 
as I was telling you privately, I'm very grateful for the book that 
yo6i gave me some ye^rs ago on Cardinal Mindszenty. I read it and 
still - treasure it. It's a very excellent book. And he's one of my 
heroes. I think he's one of yours. 



ERIC 



265 



You may proceed in whatever way is most comfortabla^We have 
your statement. If you'd like to read it, that's fine. Whatever way 
you feel is most comfortable. Thank you for being hew.' 

STATKMENT OF PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY. PRESIDENT. EACLE FORtlM 

Ms. ScHLAFi.Y. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

My name is Phyllis Schlafly, president of Eagle Forum, a nation- 
al profamily organization. I am a lawyer, writer, and home?naker. 

Last October, Eagle Forum organized and sponsored a 2-day con- 
ference on comparable worth, the subject of today's hearing. 

H.R. 4599 is identified as a bill to promote pay equity. What is 
pay equity? Equity means justice, but what is justice when it comes 
. to wage setting? Clearly, there must be something mighty fair and 
just about the American economic system which has provided 
higher wages, and more of the good things of life to more peopje, 
than any nation in the history'of the ivorld. 

Th^ free market, which allows mbst economic decisions to be 
made freely by individuals and unionAof.indivuduals, has produced 
an American standard of living that is\heej*Vy of the world. The 
method of wage setting which has produc§athe highest wages for 
the most people is the system that allows wages to be determined 
by freedom of choice. What is an individual willing to work for, 
and what is an employer willing to pay? The result is what is 
called market rates. • , 

'Our society has made a few slight modificAions to this system. 
. .Prior to the current generation, society's notion of pay equity, was ■ 
generally understood to include giving the job "preference, the 
higher pay, and the promotion to the father who is supporting a 
family. He was perceived to need the wage more than other men' or • 
women. Is that what pay equity means in this bill? r . - 

Some 20 years ago, the American society codified into Federal 
law the consensus that equity in wage setting includes the concept 
m that- an individual should receive equal pay for equal work as de- 
termined by looking. at two orr more persons doing substantially 
equal work. There is no apparent dissent from this principle. 
. Now, however, H.R. 4599 comes along and wants to engage in 
. wage setting by very different factors. *' ; . " ^ ' 

Instead of allowing wages to be set by millions of free decisions, 
H.R. 4599 wdfnts wages to, be set by the subjective opinion^ of anon- 
ymous persons who will decide job worth. ' - 

This is an even more intangible will-o'-the-wisp than pay equity, 
and even less able to produce consensus or equity. How can we 
agree on what you or I are worth in dollars and cents? Who are the 
unnamed persons who can fulfill H.R. 4599's assumption that job 
evaluation techniques can be equitable? • . 

Are they the same job eyaluators as those jn the State of Wash- 
ington case who decided that laundry WQrkecs are worth the same ' 
« truckdrivers, and should be paid equally? The estimated $1 bil- ■. . 
• / lion judgment levied against the taxpayerg^of the State of Washing-' " 
ton by the judge who dd^Bed this case, in American Federation of 
State, County, and Municipal Employees v. tf^ State pf Washington, 
was based on a job evaluation that called for "wages to be paid ao- " 
^ cording to the following points, allegedly describing jobi worth; f 



266 



Laundry worker, 96. Truckdriver, 97. Librarian, 353, Carpenter, . 
197. Nurse, 573. Chemist, 277. The evaluation concluded that 
female laundry workers should be paid equally with male truck- 
drivprs, and that female libraifaite and nurses should be paid about 
twice as much as male carpenters and chemists. 

Do the sponsors of H.R. 4599 really think that the American 
people will accepf as equitable a job evaluation that comes up with 
such subjective opinions? There isn't a shred of evidence that wage 
settings by job evalu&tors will be nearly as equitable as wage set- 
ting by the millions of individual decisions operating in the free 
market today. 

Once* you divorce wage settings from prevailing market rates, 
every determination of job worth, being a matter of subjective opin- 
ion, will result in a dispute. And most of those disputes will end up 
in thQ courts. Thati< the inevitable scenario of artificial w^e set- 
ting. 

That's why the federal judge \yho rejected . the Denver ^^JJ^^s' 
complaint that they be paid equally with tree trimmers saia^at 
the comparable worth theory is ''pregnant wjth the possibility^ 
disrupting the entire economic system of the United States, ^^^.^r--^" ^ 

Comparable worth rejects marketplace factors, and instead at- 
tempts to fix wages by a point system based on, (1) a subjective 
evaluation of job worth, plus, (2) a comparing of different kinds of 
jobs held mostly by women with jobs held mostly by men, and then, 
(;^) uses litigation or legislation to mandate the system regardless of 
cost. 

This is a radical plan to restructure the American economy by a 
process of using the courts to raise wages for women's jobs' signifi- 
cantly above prevailing mkrket rates, and without regard to pro- 
ductivity or costs. 

The game plan of those people who want to engage in-artificial 
wage setting is to trick the employer into agreeing^'to a job evalua- 
tion or job evaluation study. The lesson of AFSCME u. State of 
Washington is that any employer who orders a study or a job eval- 
uation is buying a lawsuit. ^ . . . ^ * 

Judge Tanner made this crystal clear in his decision: , 

"The State was on notice of tHe legal implications of conducting comparable 
vvorth studies without implementing a salary structure commensurate with the< 
evaluated worth of jobs. 

"It would seem obvious that when the State passed the 1977 legislation requiring 
submission to the legislature of comparable worth studies that the State knew its 
employees would be entitled to pay commensurate with their evaluated worth. 
' "Any other conclusion defies reason. It would then follow that the economic con- 
sequiences of comparable worth were predictable and foreseeable by the State, The 
State cannot be heard at this late date to argue they were surprised, confusedf or 
misled as to the legality of its action, and subsequent failure to pay. 

The jokor in^^the political game of trying to impose artificial wage 
sel^ting on the American economy is ta inject the bias into the job 
evaluation at the outset. Hay Associates, for example, is quite will- 
ing to bias its^Job. eValuations to suit its paying clients. 
' ThB city of San Jose, CSlif., known then as the feminist capital of 
the. world because* feminists held a majority on the city council, 
hired Hay Assocjate^ to give expert back-up to its highly publicized 
campaign to laiinch^ national driVe for. com parable worth. 



267 



In a client briefing on August (), 1981, Hay Associates stated, 
•Withih their situation, it is perfectly reasonable for ^ome organ i- 
. zations like the city of San Jose to attempt to lead the march for 
civil rights of women in the^ eighties." This briefing makes clear 
that, if the feminists want a job evaluation designed to serve femi- 
.^nist goals, the job evaluation experts will comply, 
. Hay Associates did a small $1(),0()() evaluation of a few State jobs 
in 'Illinois in 1!)8:] for the Illinois Commission on the status of 
women. Knowing that this group is controlled by the feminists. 
Hay Associates tailored its evaluation to please its client. 
\ Hay agreed at the outset that its job evaluation would not in- 
.volve any comparison with marketplace factors. It then set up a 
point system under which the maximum number of points that 
(?puld be given for adverse or risky workijig conditions was 10 per- 
^ cent of the total points. o ^ 

That explains how the evaluation came up with the conclusion 
that nurses should be paid equally with electricians. The State of 
Illinois will now have to defend itself in court against that biased 
evaluation. . . . ^. ^ 

Comparable worth is basically>a conspiracy 'theory of jobs. It as- 
serts that, first, a massive societal male, conspiracy segregated 
. or ghettoized women into particular occupations by excl^ them 

.from others, and then, second, devalued the women'i\jobs by 
paying them lower wages than other occupatiChs held primarily by 
men. . X 

Not a shred of evidence has been produced to prove these 
sumptions. For two decades at least, women have been free to go 
into any ^occupation. There are even ;],()()() female coal miners 
today. But most women continue to choose traditional rather than 
nontraditional jobs. 

This is their 'own free choice. Nobody makes them do it. If the 
wages for these traditional jobs are raised above the market rates, 
the result will be that even more women will crowd into those jobs. 

On the other hand, the reaction of employers will be to reduce 
the number of those jobs, and there will be even fewer of the kinds 
of jobs that women obviously prefer. The pay gap between men^and 
women is not due to discrimination. It is due primarily to the fact 
that men and women get married. 

The average married woman spends only :.^5 percent of her poten- 
tial working years in the labor force, and this has a dramatic effect 
on her earning power. Most married men are motivated to work 
; harder in the labor force to prqvide for their families. 

Most married women are motivated to spend mor> effort- on 'the 
daily care and nurturing of their cKildren. That's why most women 
choose occupations which allow repeated entry and exit from tlie 
labor force, part-time work or shorter hours, transfer to another 
city in order to accompany their husbands, and which have plea- 
santer and less risky work environments/Comparable worth is ar 
attempt to force employers, taxpayers and consumers to pa; 
women as though they had not made those career choices. / 

Since the essence of the comparable worth notion is a comparing 
of jobs held mostly by women with jobs held'mostjy by men, if 
women's job^ are allegedly underpaid, then which men s jobs are 
overpaid? ^ 

ERIC ^-^x 



268 - 



The occupationfs alleged' to be overpaid are truck drivers, con- 
struction and highway, workers, electricians, plunibers, mechanics, 
maUitenance and repairmen, policemen .and firefighters— inciden- 
tally, we Viave rueit^eard from those groups of men in th^e hear- 
ings. ' ' ' o 

Comparable worth asserts the notion that it \s unfair that blue- 
collar men are paid/more-than pink-collar won^en.^The true answer 
to the pay differential is to have open access to all occupations so 
t^at women are not barred from any/ ' 

There ia nothing equitable about forcing workers who do un- 
pleasant, risky, outdoor work to subsidize those who do clean, safe, 
indoor work. When H.R. 45J)9 asserts that. the average earningji of 
full-time female workers are. significantly lower than, the average 
earnings of sinnilarly situated malp^ workers, the. words "similarly 
situated" are, to borrow a current Mondaleisrn— 'the sleaxe factor. 

If the mal© and female'workers are indeed s^imilarly situated, we 
have adequate current re^ne^lies under present law enforced by the 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.. Most jobs 'with pay 
differentials, however, are not -^similarly situated,'''and it would ^ be 
gross p^y inequity to force the "artificial setting of wages as though 
they were 

ThariT< you. Madam' Chair 

Ms. Oakar! Thank you very much, Mrs. Schlafly. I think maybe 
■ nve'll pause there ahdj^ yoU questions, and then proceed with our 
final witness. - . , ^ 

First of all, for the record— and. I* want to thank yoi^ for your 
statement; and, by the way, I want to thank Eagle "Forum for en- 
dorsing three of my« pieces of legislation reVted to^ inequitable 
treatment toward women in the social security system. 

You don't^^agree with the other five pieces that I have, but you do 
agree with three. I was pleased by that. I really was. 

I want you to know that w,6 did. invite Corporations to-come today 
who represented some of the groups that you mentioh^d. Some cor- 
porations have voluntarily made some very fine headway. Unfortu- 
t^ately, they didn't w«int to be here today. ^ ^ 

Mrs. Schlafly. Madam Chair, may I respond to that? 
' Ms. Oakar. Sure. 

Mrs. Schlafly. I didn't say anything about corporations. Run- 
ning through the testimony of th^ advocates of this bill is a put- 
down attitude toward the blue-collar man, I thihk that was clear 
from sevefki the pieces of testimony when we're discussing job 
worth. ' ' * • . 

I would suggest that, if you had here the truck driver, the electri- 
cian, the plumber, the maintenance man, and the^policeman, you 
wouid get a different perspective on why they believe their jobs are 
maybe worth, not just a littfie bit more than the clerical worker, 
but maybe a whole lot more than the clerfcal Worker. . 

Ms. Oakar. We did have the unions that represent a good 
number of the^e, workers who, we presume, were speaking for all 
their workers. Ont: thing I want, to malte clear, in case Mt's not 
clear, is that I don't thipk that they're ove^igqd. 

I don't thihbfirefighterS^ are. overpaid. l<KiiM^ that wOmlen- 
dominated positions Jthat are coibparabl/ to the kinds of jobs that 
• you mehtioned in terms of their value to American society are not 



269 



paid adequately. We don't want to lessen any male's salary in any 
way, shape or form, you know, and Im glad you brought up the 
issue. ' . 

But in no way does the Chair feel that the positions you men- 
tioned are overpaid. That's not the issue as far as tl^Chair is con- 
cern^:d, or as far as the legislation is concerned. 

You know, Phyllis, I think that a lot of the confrontation that 
goes on between women is sometimes due to a lack of understand- 
ring.' ^ • - . " 

So that^ why I'm trying to clarify our position. We want to have 
dialog on ihis, and we want to eventually get your support. We just 
feel that somehow underneath it all, you have some feelings about 
thfs issue. Let me also mention that my legislation, the Pay Equity 
Att of 19S4, does not impose a specific wage determination system 
in any way, shape, or form. 

We agree that the laws are on the book, and I can go over what 
, ;the bill does if you'd like. The bill asks EEOC to report to Congress 
about their activities. They have a lot of backlogs of cases. We 
• think the Civil Rights Act is on the books. 

/ " The Equal Pay Act is on the books. The bill creates a report 
system ^nd a mechanism of research and assistance to employers 
that need some technical assistance on the overriding issue of pay 
equity. In no way^ do we set a specific wage determination system. 
I'd bt;happy to give you a copy of the legislation, 
Mjr^ b^cmAFLY. May I respond, Madam Chair? 
. Ms. OAjkAR. Sure. 

Mrs. SfjHLAFLY. H.R. 4599, on page 5, refers to job evaluation 
tech^igue as an objective method of determij;iing the comparative 
value bf different jobs. I think we have two problems here, whether 
it is objective, in. other words, whether you and I can— or anybody 
^ cSn— decide the intrinsic wo^-th of a job, and then you have the 
com pa'ring, which is the essence of comparable worth. 
- I do not think I exaggerate when I say that running through the 
testimony of the advocates of the comparable worth theory is 
almost a feeling of envy that the blue-collar man is making more 
. than the white-collar woman. Where a business has to sell its prod- 
uct at certain figure to mefet competition, or where a government 

^\ has to meet a certain budget, you may be dealing, with a fixed 
budget. 

So, in some instances, it's going tp be inevitable that it's a redis- 
tribution of wages from the blue-collar, to the white-collar groups. I 
thirjk thi^ does set up a rivalry. I'm nOt saying who I think is 
worth mp/e; I think that is impossible for us to agree on. This is 
\ " why I believe that the free decisipns of the marketplace^ provide the 
• : greatest equity. ^ 

Ms.' Oakar. Well, let me assure you once more that in no way 
does the Chair want to lessen any- man's salary. That's not the 
' issue at all. The issue really relates to those individuals who are 
not valued as highly because of the kinds of work that they do. *. 
I wanted to just ask you somV questions- from your testifnoriy. 
r You talk about the market pates; and , you talk very patriotically 
About the fact that our country has provided higher wages and 
..' nvore of the\good things in life to more people than aay other 
: nation.- 



ERIC 



, 35-003 0- 84 -18 " 



270 



1 thjnk to a large degree that*s true. I also think it's unthinkable 
that in Sweden, one of the weiUthiest groups of people in the coun- 
try are women ^)ver (if). In our country the poorest people in the 
country are women over fifrTlSecause their pensions are dependent 
on the wages they ^earned when they're younger. 

It's a catch-^^ for aur elderly women, because if you're not paid 
adequately when you're young, youVe bound to be poor later. Isn't 
it unthinkable th^t we would be such a wealthy country and still 
have the greatest percentage of our older women below the poverty 
level? 

1 think it's important that we illustrate that the market rates 
and what employers are willing to pay are nOt always fair. It^d be 
nice to think that this was Utopia, but the reality is that it's not 
always fair out there in terms of what wages are^-paid to certain 
groups. 

We know, Mrs. Scljlafly, that if jobs are dominated by women, 
they're bound to pay^hrand 80 and 40 and 50 percent less than 
jobs that are paid to men. You ask, for example, how can we agree 
on what you or I are worth, who are the unnamed persons who can 
fulfill my legislation's assumption? 

I want you to know that I have been criticized by some of the 
unions here today because I'm not asking for a private study. I 
want the Reagan administration, whom I believe.ybu support, to do 
the study. Do you trust them to do the study? ' 

Mrs. ScHLAFi.Y. Certainly fiot, if it's divorced from prevailing 
market rates. I don*t think anybody is smact enough to decide what 
is fair. Is it fair, for exalmple. that lawyers make a lot more than 
ministers? Is it fair that football players and tennis players make 
more than soccer players and volleyball players? 

.You are not paid what you are worth. You are paid what some- 
body's willing to pay you, and it's my belief that the free system of 
millions of people making the individual decisions is better than 
any group of people who Fabel themselves experts and try to decide 
these things. 

Ms. Oakar. So you don't feel that having this administration do 
the study is going to be objective. 

Mrs. ScHLAFLY. The biases are put in these studies when they 
are divorced from the marketplace. Our experience with this issue, 
particularly at the State level, is that wh^ the advocates of compa- 
rable worth, such as AFSCME and othfr^ are demanding is that 
they start at the outset by saying, "We are not going to look at pre- 
vailing market rates. We are only going to look in our crystal ball 
and decide what we think this is worth." 

And I think that is impossible, because we don't have a system 
whereby you're paid what you're Worth; we have a system that 
you're paid what people are willing to pay, and what others are 
willing to work for; and I think the free system has enormOus ad- 
vantages over any controlled system. And I would hope that you 
would not be advocating the type of controlled economy that they 
have in Sweden. ; ' 

Ms. Oakar. I agr^e with your statement about! wealth in this 
country. I don't lyiow that it's distributed as equitably as we'd like 

think it was. • / 



271 



Mrs. ScHLAFiA. Well, but look, 1 agree with thaf.-Thij'quiSStion is 
, do you ,. ^ ' * . , ' 

* Ms. Oakar. Do you agree with that? " " .'^ ' ' 

^ Mrs. ScHLAFLY. Nothing's ever "perfect;:jljet^^ * 

Ms.. Gaidar. Yes, but how do we recopcile^ffle problem? 
loSi'^'^ ^^^^^'''^^- ^^^'^ givejmoi'&rpower to the Government. In 

Ms, Dakar. We hav>e a' law on' the books— you agreg that We 
have the Civil'R^h(ts;Ax;t. - , 

. Mrs'. ScHLAFLY. I" agree with the-Civil Rights Act. Vt irv-*- ^ - 

\'.Ms..OAKAjis Title VI^.^clo youagree with that? •. 
Mrs. ScHLAFLY. I agree Avith titip Vll^but in 1988, as a.result 

^Mfs. Dakar. What does if say? What jjoes title VII Sav*^ 
c.... u;„ii_ I pbhited plk^d • ■ 
economy, but vve nav< 

„ equal pay for-equal' 

sitpport that. Everybody supports that. v ... ^ 

But . in 1983, under the- Reagan administration's t&x ^e'duction 
program, the private sector cheated. 4 mrllion new jobs. This i§ the 
great^t thing that can be done Tor women, for rtien, and for the 
ecor\ofhy. But to bring in a controlled system, that allows some 
people in some room som^there ,to claim they are eitperts, and 
• then redistribute income a nMlges- according to what th^think is 
Jobs • ^^^^ '° ^^Jp Keduce the creation of new 

■ I would also point out^that I'm ;not trying to impose'' my view of 
job worth on anybody else, I just pointed out that you have, in this 
hearing, heard only from the poiht 'of view of those categories of 
jobs of people who are complaining' >that they're not being baid 
enough. *' . . f . ^ . " . 

_ But I think you would get -ahother perspective if you heard from 
the mefi who .are the. truck drivers, ^he mechanics, the electricians, 
me plumbers, and all those people who do those blue-collar jobs 
^hiGh your other witnesses think should be paid much aS. 
Ms. Qakar. But again, you have to understand that the issue is 

<.not that we want to take a' nickel away 'from a firefighter, 6r an 
el«<ftricmn. . • . 

_ ^rs. ScHLAFLY. But that's what'U happen. .■ 

^s. Oa«^.'How do you know that it will happfen? You mean by 
enforcing the law that yeu support, wageg-wijl decrease in some oc- 
cupations? ^ 

Why is It iiecessary? I wish we didn't have tO;go to court on these 
i8su|4 As, I pointed .tliat out during rtiy questioning of AFSCME, 
the«re. a lot of women who don't belong tO. the labor,movem6nT. 
Therdon t have anypne to protect them in' terms of enforcement. 

A wpman shouldn't'/Jhave to go to &ourtito get a fair pension 
whe|)/-she's paid 'the same amount into th^ system' for the sam,e 
nufhber of y^ar^ as a man. her'jijale counterpart, in the same posi-^ 
tion. ^ , ' - , ■ ^ ' 

• So we don't wahtrpe,ople to go to court on these issufes'^if it ca^i be 
avoided. We want the EEOC ,to protect the law that's alt-eady in 

Uhe books that yoii. support.* 
'Mrs. Sghlafly. Yes, I do suppoft^ — ^ , \ . ' 



^ 272 



Ms". 0AK411; My legislation attempts to make them advocates for 
the' law. -Fm nol -asking for any exact standard or specific wage" de- 
termination \>'ys^m. 1 think if you look real tlose at the. legislation, . 
you^il see that there's nothing that say.s we want fir(i Fighters, to 

• make less. . I ^ ' . i* 

Tm an adVotiate for firelighters, as a matter of fact, and others 
that you me?iVibned in your testimony. We do not want to- Take a 
■ * cent away from^the^ American worker, whether he is a firefighter, 
an electrician, br any other typ^e of worker. ' ^ 

Mrs.-^CHLAFi.'f. Well, even though you don't want to take any- 
thing away from Jthe blue-collar man. you're asking for a raise in 
wageH which has Nothing to do with productivity, and which, if its 
^ a gov^Brtmental entity, vyould require a raise jn taxes, or, if it's a. 
pri^ate'company, may force that firfn to lose out in the competitive 
market.s- • , 

I support the enfb?cepie.nt of the law, and I believe the present 
law is ^3eing enforced, but the law does not require comparable . 
worth. The law requires equal pay for substantially equal work, as 
decided by looj<.ing at two^peop^^e doing substantially eaual work. 

The law d^es not cequfre us to look at whole categ/ries of clerks 
and compaPb. th'em With -wh^jle categories of plumbers of electri- 
cians.- . , P 

Ms. Oakar. Well, we're talking atjout the value pf an individual s 
work and how important it i^^. Do you think by ygur last statement 
that women are less productive in the work force than men? 

Mrs.' ScHLAFLY. I think you have to answer that question in 
terms of individuals, and not as groups. It is completely prOven 
beyond a shadow of a doubt\ that the average i|iarried woman 
spends only .So percent of her Vot^ntial earning years in the labor 
• force. 

I am among those who resent very much when some people, not 
you, but some people,, including som*e of those h-ere today, refer to 
the married woman as Chough she is the nonworking. woman. She 
is a working woman, but she is not in the labor force. ' 

^But il'.she is only putting I^f) percent of her potential working 
years in the labor force, she obviously is not going to draw the 
same pay as a man or woman who has spent all his or her life in 

the labor force. --^^ A i , o 

V ^ ' Ms. Oakar. Well, let me ask yoQ^re all women homemakers.'' 

Mrs. SghlaflYv AU women-^— . jpw 

Ms. Oakar. You and I might wi^ they y^pe 

Mrs. ScHLAFLY. All women aren't anything, except not^men. 

Ms. Oakar. OK. Well, that's true. OK. Vive la difference. 

What percentage of women arle the feolef head of the household? 

Mrs. SoHLAFLY. I do^i't know what the percent is: It'^certainly 
grq#Pg» no question about that.' But ape we getting back to the 
meciieval thegry of a jast wage, that v^k should pay -^om^body what 
is enough to support the family? . v j 

I thought^ the modern consensus wa» fhat we should ^y based on 
the work, and not on the persons situation. .This notion of a just 
wage is a kind oi^me^iev;^ theory that it's^he pbligation of the em- 
ployer to pay a family^'fiead eijough to suppor\the family. 

That is npt the modern theology, so tOy^eaXWe h^ygxome in 
Q our country to a consensus of. paying forlhe work^that is dofie, re- 




21'A 



gardless of who does it. I believHhat is tire promise which the 
people ofHhis country support, and which I support and which the 
Reagan administration supports, and which I think is the most 
valid in the present day and age. 

Yet, when we discuss this term of pay equity, I watch these advo- 
cates on television, and they often get back to *saying "WeH, my 
•^usband has left me and he's not sending support payments, and I 
ave two children to support, therefore I need comparable worth." 
IThat is a very different argument. That's the argupient of the so- 
called just wage theory of centuries ago which I do not think is the 

consennsua or should be the consensiis today. 

Ms. Oakak. Well, if a woman is doing a job that is exactly the" 
,same as a male counterpart. Do you thin^ she should be paid the 
/ sajjie amount of nxoney as js the male? 

Mrs. ScHLAFLY. Absoljjtely. And she is, and if there are violations 
. of the law, workers can make their' claim. It won't c^st them any 
* ^loney, and the EEOC today has almost no-backlog of cases, be- 
cause thkt law is so generally observed. 

Ms. Oakak. That's not true about EEOC today in tt'rms of their 
backlog of cases » 

Mrs. ScMLAKLY. Well, it's nothing compared to what it was years 
ago. 

Ms.. Oak^ak. I think you should take a look at that. 

Mrs. ScHi,AKLY. Several years ago the backlog wcis ■for 5 months. 
_ Ms. Oakak. You should take a look at- that, because wh&ti the 
IHO days runs/oiit, women are being forced to go to court ^?^lse 
drop their iriU'rest i^p^ case that they put forward before EEOC. 
The reason they don't pursue the cds^ is that EEOC has not been 
reviewing 4hose cases. • , . 

Most Americans can't afford the kinds of* (ee,s that attorneys 
charge. ^ 

, ■ Mrs. ScHLAPLY. But most of J^hose cases that I think. yt)u were re- 
ferring to are attempts of certain groups to establish the.-: compara- 
ble worth notion by bureaucratic regulation or by litigation, even 
though It is not in the statutes. I do not believe that a bureau 
should be rewriting the statute. That is what a lot of those claims 
that you refer to r.eally are. 

Ms.^Oakar. We're'not asking the Bureau to rewrite the statute. 
The Chair belie ves-^that the laW is on the books, that there are. 
two laws that relate to the issue of pay equity. 

What we're asking foi- ii9- some advocacy and some kind of evi* 
dence that EEOC is doing its job. We're asking for a study by the 
Office of Personnel Managemisnt of the Fede'-cal work force as well. 
The Chair could have been pai\isan about it and asked for another 
\study by Democrats or somebody like that, but decided' on an inter- 
nal study. " \ ^ - 
. We're asking this administration to do the job. We think they're 
9 charged.to do a job. . .. 

Mrs. ScHLAFLY. But they're not changed to establish comparable 
- worth. The Supreme Court has made if very clear that comparable 
worth is not the law, ahd 1 do not believe that EEOC should make 
that law, ^ 

flMs. Oaka'h. Well, the Federal Court in Washington said the op- 
posite. They saicj that <;orhparable worth was a- factor, and' that s 



ERLC 



274 



why they ruled in favor of AFSCME's claim. You may not like 
AFSCME's suit, they won. ' ^ . ' 

'That's an is^ue that all women and all men in this country ought 
to be behind: . i. \ ' 

I am concerned about the quality of life of each and every 
person, and the issue ofTairness and justice in this country 

Mrs. ScHLAFLY. The State of Washington suit— of course you're 
right— did decide for comparable worth. Fortunately, that so far 
only applies to Washington, and it is on appeal, liu^ that case was 
based on a job evaluation system in which the so-called experts 
said that it was unfair that laundry workers were paid 41) percent 
less than truck drivers; and part of this billion-dollar judgment is 
to raise the pay of laundry workers equal to'truckdrivers' pay. 

Now, I submit that that is a subjective judgment, and that there 
is no evidence that this type of subjective evaluation of job wofth is 
going 1,0 produce gener^ t^quity any more than the free market 
system. . ^ 

Ms. Oakar. Mr. Bosco. 

Mr. Bosco/Thank you, Madam ('hairman. , 
Certainly, a lot of what you say Mrs. Schlafly, I can identify 
with. I had lunch late last week with a young man from my distrtct 
who has-been Judged to be one. of the three best high schoOl basji^- 
ball players iia the country. And we w<^re laughing that I am poAr 
tiye that upon graduation from college that he will ijijjke more in* 
his first T) years than I will probably make as a Member of Coh- 
gress and as a lawyer for the rest of my life. " / ' 

Mrs. Schlafly Now is that fair? 

Mr. Bosoo.^ So there is something in all of us that can identify 
with the difficulty of establishing which jobs are comparable and 
which people are worth what in the workplace. 

But I do have a few questions. One is that you identify yourself 
a3 president of Ragle Forum, a national profamily organka^tion. 
. Can you describe to me how your posit ioi^ on this is a profamily 
one? I can see how your testimony relates to the free market, and 
the free entt^rprise system, and everything else, but how does it 
relate to being profamily? 

Mrs. S(^HLAFLY. We believe that some of the most formidable at- 
tacks on the family today are the economic attacks. We'^have ad- 
dresse4 ourselves to many of these economic attacks on the family, 
such as th6 tremendous decline in the value of the child's income 
tax exeniption, which has taken place over the last [)() years*. If a 
child were to have the same value in the income Tax Code today as 
a child had when my first child Was born, the child exemption 
would be $4,000 per year. 

We criticize the tremendous attack on the traditional family that 
exists in discrimination in individual retirement accounts. 

Mr. Bosco. Some of those issues are^ easier to 'Understand. 

Mrs. Schlafly. We think that the comparable worth hotion is 
unfair to the traditional family. The target group of the compara- 
ble worth advocates, and I have listened to their rhetoric all over 
the country, is the blue-collar man^ who is trying to support his 
family. * ^ . 

Running through the rhetoric of all of/thejJe people whom I have 
debated for 10 years is a feeling ofeiiiy^hat the man who does not 



ERIC 



1 



275' 



have {I college education, could possibly be paid as much a| a 
woman who has a business school or a nursing <^chool certificite. 

So we look upon one of the elements ol" comparable worth, as a 
direct attack on the ability of the blue-collar man to sqpport his 
family and to maintain the traditional family lifestyle. 

Mr. Bosco. You believe that the result of any action that we 
might take in bringing wombn up in the workplace will inevitably 
result in bringing men, down, and that will be the attack on the 
family? 

Mrs. ScHLAPLY. Yes, and not only men, but women. If you raise 
th(j wages ol clerical workers, the inescapable result is that every 
employer i;s going to reduce the number of clerical workers. So, 
,maybe you will have some women who will get a dollar an hour 
rnqre, but you will havj other women who will lose their jobs alto- 
gether. / » 

Mr. Bosoo. But we have had testimony which 1 assume is true, 
that more and more women are going into thfe work forc^ including 
rnore and more married women. I think that we had testimony 
that over half of the married women, not the single parents; or the 
divorced women, or women who choose to be single, but more than 
half of the married women in this country are back at work. 

Why do you think that they are doing that, is this some frivolous 
activity on their part to buy luxuries, or are^they going back to 
work-out of necessity? 

"Mrs. SCHLAFLY. Well, .1 think that women work for the same 
reason that men work. They need the money. But I looked at the 
Census Bureau figures which were released this week, and the ma- 
jority, that is more than 50 percent, of the married women who are 
in the work force today are doing only part-time work. 

I think there is significant evidence that the majority of those 
were induced into the labor force by the financial incentives we 
have built into the income tax law which tell her that, if she goes 
into the labor force, approximately the first $8,000 she makes can 
be tax free. ' 

Mr. Bosco. So this is motivation behind women getting into the 
work force to take advantage of the Internal Revenue Code? 

Mrs., S(n^I.AFLY. I do not think .that you can discount financial in- 
centives. The IRAV the individual retirement accounts, are highly 
discrinunatory. They tell wfves that, if you will just move into the 
work force, the first $2,000 you make can be tax freef 

Mr. Bosco. I do not want to be overly argumentative. But let's 
assume that most of the women who are going back into- the work 
,fo(C«r^he married women, are^oing it out of necessity. Apparent- 
ly, that would mean that the benefits of our society that you spoke 
of are costing more, whereas years ago in a family, the man could 
earn enough to provide that standard of living. Now it is taking 
two people to provide it. 

Would there not be an advantage to the blue-collar worker if his 
wife has to go out -and work to support the family standard of 
living, that she is paid an equitable wage vis-a-vis what men in the 
same situation are paid? 

Mrs. ScHLAFLY. I believe in paying an equitable wage. The ques- 
tion js who decides. 



276 



Mr. Bosco. But in tornis of this profaniily that yuu are support- 
ive ofv, I can conciMV(» of a situation where the .btue-collar family 
would be advantaged by a woman making morejirt a cItM'ical posi- 
tion whcM'e historically she has not bi^eii able to. 

Mrs. ScHLAKi.Y. The assumption in your atf+umcnt is that 'certain 
categories of work are not paid equitably. I think that ttiat is a sub- 
jective perspective, and that you have not "heard from the other 
point of view. . 

I agree that people should be paid ecjuitably. The question is who 
decides, v • 

Mr. Bc)scx). I think that what we a?*e talking about is not so much 
the case of the basketball player that I mentioned eai*lier,.hut large 
numbers of people working in Vaditional Jobs where it can be 
shown not through a conspiracy as you mentioned but just through 
history, that it is very hard for people to got out of that kind of 
discrimination. 

And I think ihat if anything we will probably want to address 
those major^im^as where historically women are underpaid for 
hard work that -is^^om payable to other hard work. And it can prob- 
ably be shown that this hurts families as much or more as some of 
the things that you have felt does. 

Mrs. ScHi.AKi.v, Well, what we have been discussing here is com- 
paring the clerical Worker with the blue-collar mainter^ance man. 

Mr. {Josco. And the nurse with the prison warden. 

Mrs, ScHLAFi.Y. They are running ads in the ('hicago papers 
right now offering jobs for nurses at an hourly wage that figures 
out- to $;^().0(M) a year. / 

How much do you think a nurse is worth? 

Mr. Bosco. Well, the nurses that I have experienced in the minor 
• illnesses that I have had at'e worth at least that or maybe more. 

Ms. Oakar. It would be nice to think that the average nurse 
made $.S0,()0() a year. But I think that the typical nurse makes 
about $18,000. ^"^he median income for nurses is about $13,000 a 
year. » 

Mrs. ScHLAFi.Y. I have a daughter-in-law who is a nurse; she can 
call in on .Monday and say, I choose to work only Monday and 
Wednesday this week. 

Ms. Oakar. Well, she is lucky. I do not' know many nurses who 
can. I do not think that my staff person can call in and do that. 

I have read the article about your famiiy in Good Housekeeping. 
And I thought that it was very interesting. Very honestly, and^I 
am being very sincere about this, I thought thab it added a very 
differ-ent dimension , to you. I v^as struck by the^ct that you otti 
for Congress twice giiev^ral times when your children were youngen 

And some of the women here have younger children. So you have 
a lot in common with some of the people around here. 

Mrs. S^HLAii^Y. \ believe in free career choice. I ' think that 
women can do whatever they want. When you discuss a subject 
like this, look, for example', at the wOmen who have gone into the 
real estate business wheire women have always been paid exactly 
the same as men^ Whoever sells the house, you get the same. com- 



mission. 



277 

\ ■ ' 

And women have w\v{usr\^^^kon over that field. They are now' 
over 50 *f5ercent. Nobody kept them out. This notion that women, 
are deliberately ghettoized, I think, cannot stand up. 
A Ms. Oakak. But you are stating -on page f) clearly, in that last 
paragraph there that somehow our motivation reUftes to trying to 
break'up American marriages. It would be nice to think that all 
women got married, and all spouses were fcJirly well off. 

But women by and large work today bfecause they need the 
money as much as any man needs the money,. 

Mrs. ScHiAKLY. I said that a few minutes ago,. 

Ms. Oakak. And .we are not out to disrupt the American family. I 
believe very strongly that the basic unit of society is the A^iierican 
family. - . , 

Mrs. ScHLAKLY. Madame Chairman*, there was no impHcation jn 
my testimony that you were ffying to disrupt the American family, 
or that I think that our society is structured the way it ought to be.^ 
I have just made my observation of the way that society is. 

Maybe in 50 years,- women will be in the work force all their 
lives like men. I do not think so, but it is possible.^But^ the world - 
in which we^live today, most women have not spent all their lives 
in the labon force like men, and therefore, they do not achieve the 
levels? of^^rnings that men achieve. . In addition, women value 
other elements of the wage-benefit package besides pay itself. 

Ms. Oakak. Mrs. Schlafly, you mention here *^that is why most 
women choose occupations which allow repeated entry and exit.'' 
You imply that women choose these occupations because of mar- 
riage. A good portion of the women in this country are not mar- 
ried, 

Mrs. S(:hlafi;y. But there is no pay gap between unmarried men 
and unmarried women. The pay gap is only between the married 
men and the married women. 

Ms. Oakak. That is absolutely not trye. We will give you the sta- 
tistics on that, and we can ^share each other's statistics. 

You also mentioned that their choices have to do with t*he less 
risky work environment. 

I think that women choose so-called traditional jobs like nurses, 
social work, teachers— ^nd not that they should riot choose other' 
jobs like being engineers, and iawyerg^ you are right, ihajre are • 
more options open today than ever before— because it is an exten- 
sion of their femininity. . 

I think women choose tho^e jobs, because they care abcfut people. 
To care-is a feminine quality. I do not think it is fair that nurseS 
are discriminated when paid, particularly when their work is' so 
important to our society. They spend more time with all patients— 
the elderly, sick, children— during hospital care. 

I truly believe it is a crime that important occupations— {ik^^sec- 
retarial work, teaching, and nursing— are undercompensated just 
because our iOovernment standards are not being met. 

Mrs. ScHLAFLY. If you took away the garbage collectors, our soci- 
ety would collapse. ■ 

Ms. Oakar. I agree. 

Mrs. ScHLAFLY. And they are all men. ' ^ ' 

Ms. Oakar. But they are paid' a much higher salary than the 
typical occupation that I just mentioned. 

28.1 




\ 



278 



Mrs. ScHLAFLY. There you go again attacking , the blue-collar 
man. 

Ms. Oakar. I am not attacking that person. What I am saying is 
that that individual who collects the garbage, or that individual 
who is the electrician, or the fire person, or whoevqr, male or 
femiale, should not make any less. 

And Phyllis, please do not try to confuse the issue. Because we 
are not saying that. We are saying that women who are in occupa- 
tions that should be valued higher should be paid more adequately. 
Tha|: is the point. Not that we want to take on^ thing away from 
men. ^ ^ 

As a matter m fact, the president of AFGE, in his testimony, 
cited individual 'cases of men who were discriminated against, be- 
cause they were in traditional kinds of jobs like secretarial posi- 
tions. They were making less money as they should as well. 

I agree with that. We are nof^ying to take away any male's 
salary. And frankly, I am not going to let you get away with it. 

Mrs. ScHLAFLY. Wefl, we would like everybody's salary ^o be 
higher. , / 

Ms. Oakar. You and I know that that is not the point. But really 
and truly vye appreciate your coming here. I think if you examine 
this more closely, you will take a better look at where the poverty 
is in/tKis country. The fact that a third of the women who are head 
of the household are below the poverty level, who have children to 
take care of is a statement in itself. 

Mrs. ScHiJVFLY. Do you think that they should be paid more be- 
cause they are heads of households? ^- 
Ms. Oakar. No, but I think that tliey^should be paid more in the 
arious jobs they hold, ij^ those occupations are underpaid. You 
know, the only .reason that the market does not pay more is that 
we do Fiot demand that they pay more. 

Ana let me tell you something. If we had the nurses, and the 
teach/fers, and the secretaries say, listen, we are just not going to 
perform for thos^ wages, our country would really have some prob- 
lems. 

And I am saying to you that \ye are all people who care. We are 
' Americans who care about our people. We both believe in the Civil 
Rights Act. All I am saying is let's enforce it. That is all. 

Mrs. Schlafly; Let's enforce it as it is writt^if^. 

Ms. Oakar.. JExactly, I. could not agree Vjth you more. 

Mrs. ScHLAFLY. Not as sonte^people wouljl like to write some new - 
jargon into it: ' - ^ ' - . . ^'v 

Ms. Oakar. I absolutely agree with you. LrCt s enforce it as it is 
written/ . ^ * - : ^ 

Thank you very much for your testimony. ■ f ^ 

Mrs. Schlafly. Thank you, Madame Chair. ^"^^ ^ 

Ms. Oakar, We agree on some things anyway. It "is good to haye 
you here, really. > 

[The following written comments were received for thjf re/:ord - 
subsequent to the hearing.] ' V 

■ 282 • -J^ 




279 i 



PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY >- ^ 

^ TKSTIMONY ON COMPARABLK WORTH 

One of President Jimmy Carter ' s appo'i ntees to the Federal 
bcnch/-U.S. District Judge.-Jack E. Tanner, handed down ' 
page decision on December 14, 1978 at Tacoma, Washington, which, 
attempts to legitimatize a radical new concfept of judicial 
activism that has massive implications fo*r a 1 1 -gover nme n t a 1 
bodies and private employers.* [1] As he annou/)ced in his Opinion, 
"This is a case of. first impression insofar as it concerns the 
implementation of a Compjarabie Worth compensation system. "12] ■ 

Washington's Assistant Attorney General, Clark Davis, told 
the press that the court's ruling would "jeopardize the P^^^ 
scheme of every employer in the couTi t ry . " ( 3 ) Thal^s n^Mi^^pe f bole 
When another Federal judge rejected a Comparable Worth compl'^nt 
against the^ity of Denver in .1978, he accurately said that tha * 
Comparable Worth theory is "pregnant with the poffs i b 1 i 1 i ty of 
disrupting the en 1 1 re. *ecomon ic system of the United States."! 4] 

T-he financial burden of -Tanner's decision, unless reversed 
on appecil, is er>timated to cost^ the Washington State tuxpaye-rs 
about $1 billion on wage increas&s, fringe benefits, backpay, 

and in junctive relief . to the p],a iti t i f f s « T^le poteri t i^ai rtigJTting 

v^"- ' . -"^ - ■ 

load on the courts boggles one's imagination. When attorney 

Winn Newman won the Tanner ruling on behalf of the American 

Federation of State, County, andi,4dunicipa.l Employees against* 

/ • • ■• ■ ■ - V 

the Sta te* of^'W^shLngtoni^ AFSCME issiJ^.^ a news release predicting 
that "the ruling meefrts, %^mi lar -actions can be expected in other 

state and l^ocal governments ."( 5 ] Indeed, class-action suits are 
already pending in Pennsylvania, New-York, Illinois, JWisconsin, 
Connecticut, Los Angeles, and Hawaiii 



283 



280 



Whnt_ Is Comparable Worth? 

"Equal Jay. for Comparable Worth" in a nystem of Wafje- 

settinq which rejects marketplace factors and instead fixes 

wages -by a point systeVh based on (1) a subjective evalu.ition of 

30b -WORTH plus (2) a COMPARING of diff^'rent kiruis of jobs hrhl 

/ * . • 

mostly by woin(>n with jobs Hold mostly by men, [6) .uici thfn (3) 

( 

crses. litigation or legislation to mandat*.* the system regard h^s.s 
^ t " 

■ . . i 

of cost. t. ' 

The Tanner rul ing is tlu' initial victory in a r.id u.m 1 plan 
to restructure the American econpmy by a pr/)r('s.s ot usincj tho 
Courts to raise wages for woman's jobs significantly <jbove^'^ 
prevailing market rates and without tc^ard to prodiic t i ve i y or 
costs. What makes this concnpt appealing to some people i<; 
that it is falsely packaged as "women's rights" whon, in fact, 
the real issU^ is whether we will allow the courts to disrupt 
private enterprise as they have already disrupted the public 
schools. 

■•DisjTUpt" is not too strong a word. Judge Tanner conceded 
that Ris- order might severely dent th(,' recess i on- r i ddc-'n Washington 
State treasury, but insisted that tho romody "hcjs to be disru[>tive 
becaus/s you ' re 'chang i ng past prac t i ce . " ( 7 } -s 

Nothing Joss than a complete cour t - 1 akoover the private 
sector goal of tho t'omparablo Wo r t li^advoca t es . Winn 

Newman te s t i f i ed be f ore a Mouse subcommi t t ne on Soplember 16, 
1 982 that, ^lore can be 1 i4 t Ic^^^ub't , r ha t porvasive sox^-basod 
wage d i sc*r imi na t ion exists throughout the pub Ik' sector. "(8J? ^ 
Speaking to a friendly subcommittee, he laid ^t his game plan: [9 J 

It appears that only a strong litigative strategy 
will goad emp foyers to end the blatant sex-basnd dis- 
crimination ■ wh ich 'ex i s t s ir, almost every workplace that^ ^ 
has traditionally employed women workers.- In a word, 
it is time to move Comparable Worthy from the'' conference 
room to the courtroom. 

Labor Unions, women's rights gtoups and individual 
female workers must step up the pace of filing discrimi- 
nation charges; and- 1 i t iga t i ng these cases. A number ^ 
of dramatic court victories will do Itiore to inspire 
"vo 1 untary " compl iance , ef f ect i ve co 1 lec ti ve hoa r i nqs , 
reports and studies. The teaching of the enforcement of 
civil rights laws is that a lawsuitror the threat of a 
lawsuit is often the best way to educate. 



v. 



'281 



•No Evidence of Di scnimi n*a"t ion ' 



One would think that, in a dramatic $1 billion juxU;jment 
^agan^t an-^oiploy^^ the * 4 2.-pa<5e* 6j)'ini4p rrui^^ht" cpjita in soino 
evidence ol what T^Jj^cr asserted was "hi^storical ... direotr 
Overt and. i nsbi tu t jona^izf^d idi.scrurt^inat. io;^^^ woiM;n,(10) 
-But\Xhe' proof /of ^^ny wrongdcyipjg'^by Washinton 5'tate u<j<iin:«t its' 
female employees- is less^^han ,p|jrsuasi^ve . The decision contains 
. . ij^ € V i dfe n ce ■ t ha t any " w.orna n wa s pa i dl " "1 f s s t ha n a <» m a . £ b oq u a 1 ^ 
work, for substantially equal work, or f or ^comparabjie wofk. 
iTie decision .^'ontainp no evid^^ncfi. t h.j.t ^.any"-WQman w<;^i/ oxcl udf/d. 

"v^-. •■; . ' ■ 

' "or. <?v'>n d 1 s«*c)uVAOt^t^ frcnn. t.iki'nq. a "maft'?: job" <u n^V p^ '^:"<>^ od 

t o one . The do r i s i ort (?c).h't a i n s ■ no /ivi vjc n<'r " t> ba t wo^ik: n w<.- i ( ■ * • 

■''',.*"■'•'-.„, :, \> . • , 

induce^! to, take "women ' s ..^jobs " or ^er<',paid 1 sh 'hetra\j>>e '^t h^-y - ' • 

, were wotnort. As would be expected,^ t h<i dec i.-*; ion IcatK', In^^avily 

^ ■ ■ ... " • 

on current civil rights l^iv thai: "'it' ts aot .f>*»^'::er;5i.fti y,, t,u^ (rntab-lX^li 

; . d i.scr liiri iia to.ry I n t en t ^ " [ i 1 ) • ^ - ^ ^ 

, . ■ «. f - 

. The Tanner d<?c'isi*on rested* it^ caVe ...for . st^x dn'^ciimi ■■ 

nation oil : - *( 1 ) a showing that the Stale :<3id not p<7iy'woinon the 

'> ♦ ■ ' ^ 

salaries lj-idicate<l by tjie. job evaluat ibn whK'l^ the.r^t'itv hircul. 

■ " " , ■ ^ • ' V.-*' ' ■ ■ ■ '"v , . 

' - to be.njt^de" t he .pr"j,.yate co/)sultinq firm of* Ndrinari Wd: 1 1 i"f3 & /• 

Associates; (^) a' showing that prior to 1^7i the.Stat<- ran ^, 

some "help wanted ad?3 i^i th^V* 'male* an<i f^?rfa]<-'' columiiS af^ p 

newspapers"; (^) S£5me self-scrvinq qt^rferal i t i«'s i rP^jol i t ic ians ' 

] : hews releases; and (4} the passaqe^Of Jiwp Comparablr" Worth 

■" '/ implementation billa^by the^ ^State r^qislktOrn»> in 1 98''3 /( a ^2 ) 

; ■ ■ wh4C^r wer6 " r id icliled' as a "token Appropriation of $1,5 miliiorr' - 

and construed as an admi ssion aga j nst in teres t . i 1 3 ] - 

The $1. bullion- decision Essential ly depends oh , the WilliV . 

• "VJob -oval uat ion . Tanner ruled that th ft B ? 3te d i scr iminated and 

acted in "bad;'fai th" hecaUtje j[ t did hot pay equ'>l V^igfiS I or/> 

^ • V women ' s*" -iob's " to' which the Willis evaluation h^d assigned o, 
- ■ ■ " " . * ■ ^ , ' ^ \ r • ^ 

number of points. "compar^|Jt?Je- -^tcr ,ot her job's heUJ by men in\/bl</incj ^. 

entirdlV-dif.fert- kinds of work. Tftnn^r refujjed to\entertain ' 



282- 



an^ arguments about costs, saying, "It is time, r i^t novr for a ' 
remedy. Defendant's preoccupa t ion wi th jts budget constraints 
pales when compared with the invidiQusness of the impact ongoing, 
(3fiscrimination has upon the Plaintiffs herein. "[14] ' . 



Ti'^ !:'£5\!i^iL^Jiat Premise of Job Eyaluatron 



.Ti^e Tanner decision itself is based or\ invidious comparis i'ons . 
Their entire concept of Comparable Worth is a housg of' cards 
■ built on the false premise that persons who call t^^tnselVes , 
"experts" can after completely closing their eyes to alU ^ 
^Marketplace facto'rs — evaluate a wide variety of jobs (pro- 
fessional, white-collar and blue-collar) and give each one a 
"point" value which (1) is objectively accuarate, and\2) is 
just And equitable in comparision with every other type of job 
with the a^me employer. The key element in the Comparable Worth 
methodology (^nd spec i f icia 1 ly in the Tanner decision) is getting 
the judge to accept the assumption that someone can and should 
set equitable wages totally divorced form prevailing market - 
rates, • ^ 

The Tanner decision states that the^illis job evaluation 
^ assessed each job class "using the fol lowing four evaluation 
components: (1) Knowledge and Skills (Job Knowledge, 'Interper- 
sonal Communication Skills, Coordinating Skills); (2) Mental 
Demands (Independent Judgment, Decision-Making, Problem-Solving 
Requirements); (3) Accountability (Freedom to Take Action, 
Nature of the Job's impact. Size of the Job's Impact); (4) 

Working^ Condi>tion.s. (Physical Efforts, Hazards, Discomfort, 
, Environmental Conditions), The total Gf tfie value of these 

four components constituted the final point value of the class. "[15] 

It is unlikely that^ny two persons, even "experts," could 

agree on a relative pOint distribution amoung that list of \ 

intangible for even one job, let alone the 15,500 jobs involved^ ' 

in the plaiVitif fs ' class-action suit. 



ERIC 



28 0 



. 283 ^ » 



^' The *tyjj<- of job evaluation uschI in the Tanrv^ lx?ciriion - 

-and^genera 1 ly^, demanded by the Compara.ihle , Wt)r th advocate - in 
. • •-• *" . ^, ■ <i 

' -fundamental ly th fff» rent from job eva 1 ua t ioi\^<5 uj?fd by employers 

today". r^s^ »r' Comparable Worth job evaluation is a». iJi ^i^e^ss 

of sub ject i ve. opi n ion masquorad i nq as object ivt» f<»c\^. Second, 

\ the Comparable^ Worth job evaluation delibeiately exc?ludes market" 

place factors such cis prevailing wacje rates. 

Third,^ the CcfTnparable Worth job e va 1 ua 1 1 on compares profes- 
■ s iona 1 .. vhi te - col 1 or and b 1 uo-co 1 lor jobs in the same poi n i 
^Scheme, 'Kaurth, the professional and white-collar va 1 ua tor s " 
(who have little^ real understand inc/ of blue-collar work) syn- 
tematically and consistently undervalue risky and luipieafiant 

-V . 

* i 

working conditiorts. 

Thir» process produced such bizarre results as the fol- 
lowing: laundr^^^worker 96, .truck driver 97, librarian 
carpenter 197, nurse 57j, chemist 277. The evaluation con- 
cluded.^that ( f emlile) laundry workers should be pa idjj^ ^^ al 1 y . 
with (male) truck driveirs; and that (female) 1 ibrarianii and 
nurses should be paid about twic;<^^s much as (male) carpenters 
and chemi s ts . [ 16 1 It's no wonder that Washiiuiton State saw f i t\ 
not to implement the >^\llis evaluations. 

of the Tanner Decis^^o" 

The strategy of the Comparable Worth advodates is clear: 
Seek t,he forum- of- a Carter-appointed judge in order to try 
class action cases against State and loc.al governments c>^ the 
Federal Government. The judges will be friendly, the govern- 
ment o^iicx^s won't have to -worry about keeping, costs down in 

■ - V 
order to compete in the free market, and the politicians can be 

intimidated by the false assertion that thi.*? is^a "women's 
rights" issue. "^1^ / 

Then, having judicially establised the premise that 
Comparable Worth is a equitable system*, they will start liti- 
gating, legislating", and striking to force the private sector 



284 



t.o co.Tply. A\' i\r> Ton v-n i on , I h-:* A'-M.-(Mn (i< •'!••>; g ■; 

comp.irab Ic work' in ('ontta<"' ri<;<^<)t u"»t i«;)s ( atuj. t->) t.ik*' .ill ^ 

other a[)proin" 1,1 r ^ action to I t inq "abo'.a^t r (-qii.i 1 i t ■/ ii:.j,,iy 

for work ot <'**:■•('. u .ib If va ha* . '* ( ^ 1 

'rho T^uiniT 'i< ■(■ 1 s I (HI [r.jk»'S dear that W«i r.h i ri; ; r >:: .tt<- jif 

* 

1 1 .s hoad Mi t h'* ..<.'0.';< wr\".r) it ■ *onun i s.s K»r.< d th-' WilIiS K>b <\.)ii:a- 
tion, HjifhT 'i' iiiiii*r • f t • M '-ofi I ru} , 'M i si'* r : ■' i tia I i (U^ " i>('A:*' ■■T: 
ovKj'-'rit wh<>n ' lio ■ 1 i tf) ;'«'ru the Willi-, i'va';la- 

tions. Tanner's d(M.'i';i<)a r li t h 1 • -.ss J y s t a r . -d i ( I H | 



'WiC S*atr>^was c>n nut of f.li»' IcqaL l M .it ioii'; 

of cor.(i'a: • ; ri'j ( 'oi'^ia r al; 1 e Woith ^tinlnv> wiMi-.' i 1 (.-n.*' r. r i nq 
a saKiry n t r im*t .j t cotT>rnr»n.su ra t w i Mi the "".t)'M't'(J wor^h 
of iof^ . It wou Wl soer, obvious that w\\f>n t).»- Stato pas'."(] 
the 10/7 I'Mjrslaflon rfM|urrinq '^m! i ';ro r^n t ^< » hMjis'rj- 
tino ()f <■();:'{ a I ab I e Worth sudio-. that rhf ;;i ,t,. Kivw^it 
prrp 1 oyer's would he r'ntitl^vl to [..ly ^ ( ■ nsu i <-i ? with t I.-m i 
^ evaluated wortfi. Any oth**r i.oru d'l: jori <lr'f if'«, r^ .j-wui. 
It would thea follow t }ia t t lie "cr>rio:ti'' ('on ■.' i jii' ^.f • ; > !* 
Comparable Worth were j r ed i c t a b b \ Miiui ♦ oi "'*al b- by 
t hx? State, The ^ate e.inrHU bi* hf.nii af t lu $. l.it*- <]it" ' 
-jrj ^ to arqiie they weii* .'Uw ^a J r.f -d , corif;i ,.'d or itj';b«.l a.s t 

tho legality of i Ls actions and sul)fie(jucn t f.ailun-^to 
pay. * 



All oth(a employers, public and privatf\ r^hould porulfM 
those word.s earful ly before thf?y eommi.sri ion a "job evalu.it ion" 
or acquiefjco in the radical notion of Comparaijle Woith, 

( 1 ) Ame r i c a n Fe r d e r a t i (Dp _qj State, and Mu ri j c ijja 1 Kinp 1 c>y e e v . , 
State of Washington, No C82-465T, f; I i p opinion filed 



S 



December H, 1983, reported at M VKP Cases 808. {W,U. 
^tfiWa^UifKjton 1983); Cited herqafter as AFSCME. 

(2) AFSCME, slip Opinion at 29, 

\ 

(3j Reported in the Chjica^o T^une, Dec. 13; 1983. 

(4]* Lemons v^.^ pi tj^ and C9untj of pt^nver, 17 FKP Cases 906 
(D. Colo, 1978), affd, 620 F2d 228 ClOth Cir. 1980). 
.cert., denied. 44^ U.S. 888 ( 1980). 



:Dir / 



285 



V 

1 '.Ki:. I- '\, 1 1 



AI-'flCMi:, (-p. at 17. 



1 /'! f;'^w:;w.'('k , I>%-. 



<, p. 4H. 



( 1 ''H.' ) , 



f '^1 Ibul. , p. If,.}. 



lOl AKr.C'Mi:, opMinni .it / 



(111 Aisr>'i: 



M* '>{'ltll<)n ,i! 1/; CM II, 'J Cl MJ.i:; v. f,^;k,- P(,W"f 



( 12 ) Wash. L,,w.s \^)H\, \ A 



ini AI'\SPMK, sltp op, ,u n and M; r;oo also lootno^o 10: "What 
* othor logical r('a.<;on [than s^x .1 1 sc r i mi na t i on ) ran thoro 
bp for t}H' Ijofondants (sicl adoption f by t hp i^.issagr . 
of tho 108 J statutes 1 of \Mo ' comp.i ?ah I p worth' theory 
of ('onipen.sat ion. ' • 

■I 

( 14 1 AKSCME,sl ip op. at M. 
[151 AFSCME, slip op. a| 40 

(16) AFSCMK MeBfio in Support of Comparahlo Worth Charge Against 

Washington State, published by the Bureau of National 

AMairs,7^he goyparable W^rUi Issue, 1981, ppr* 30-32. 
(171 U.S. House Hearings, op. cit., p. 164. 
(18) AFSCME, slip op. at 36-37. ♦ 

35-D03 0 - 84 19 ^ 



286 



. ^ » •■ 

Ms. Oakar. Our n^witness will Ipfoceed/ We are sorry that we 
■ saved you for last. But sometimes we save the most challenging 
witnesses for last. We are glad to have you here, Mr. Lorber. 
" . Please proceed in whatever way is most comfortable. 

STATEMENT OF LAWUENCE Z. LORBER. AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR 
PERSONNEL MANA<JEMENT 

Mr LoRBEB. Madame Chair and members, of the committee, my 
name is Lawrence Lorber. I am currently a lawyer in Washington 
specializing in labor and" equal employnient law. Prior to joining 
my law firm, I held various positions in government including that 
of Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs 
in the administration of President Forcf: . . ir r 

I am before you today to deliver testimony on behalf - o), the 
- American Society for Personnel Administration. ASPA is the 
world's largest personnel association consisting of 34,000 personnel 
professionals in the United States and abroad. . " 

As r^the largest association of pe;-sonnel professions, AbPA fe^ 
taken seriouidy its responsibility to conduct and sponsor researWi • 
. ' into human resource issues, and increase the capacity of the profes- 
sion to serve society by insuring that* the economic system is fair 
and productive. To that end, ASPA has devoted extensive effort 
toward studying compensation issues. In 1981, ASPA in conjunction 
with the American Compensation Association published <,a major 
study entitled "Elerfients of Sound Base Pay Administration 
- which described the fundamental elements of structured compensa- 

tion systBms. ' 

Thus, I am testifying on behalf of an organization uniquely quali- 
fied to participate in the growing debaCe over fair compensation, , 
and one whose collective expertise can help remove thfe mist of con- 
fusion and rhetoric which has so far obscured the real issues. 
^It is with this background that I offer ASPA's yiaws^tm the issue- 
of comparable worth as a concept and as embodied in the legisla- 
tion before this committee. As a matter of law and as a matter ot 

sound public policy in a free economy, the concept of judicialW or 
bureaucraticafly mandating comparable worth is unacceptable.^ 

It has no basis in -statute, no support in the reported cases, and 
" represents a startling reversal of 20 years of direction in the en- 
forcement of our equal employment opportunity laws. , _ 

The history of congj^ssional activity in the area of compensation 
discrimination and comparable worth.fs clearly beyond reasonaljle 
• question. Only a year before the passageof title VII, Congress too^ 
a hard look at the morass in which this-theory would lead, and de-" 
cisively rejected the idea that the courts should be thrust into it^- 

The original bills that eventually became the Equal Pay Act ot 
1963 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1), adopted a "comparable worth aPProach. 
Thus, Congressman Zelenko, sponsor of H.R. 1167,7 in the 87th Con- 
gress one of the key parent bills of the Equal .Pa^ Act, described it 
(referring to a letter from the Secretary of Labor discussing the dis- 
tinction between "equal" and "comparable") as requiring that 
" 'work of comparable character' on jobfe requiring comparable 
skills ' .".must be paid for on an equal nondiscriminatory basis. 
108 Cong. Rec. 14768 (July 25, 1962). Congfcswoman ^t. George, 




. 287 , 



stating her fear that the term "comparable" waa too nebulous and 
would, allow "tremendous latitude to whoever is to be arbitrator in 
these disputes," proposed on the House Hoor an amendment to 
change the language ''work of comparable character" to "equal 
work." lOS Cong. Rec. 147(57 (July 25, l<j()2). CongressmanLandrum 
concurred, observi-ng that "[r|f, in factr we want to establish eqpal 
pay for equal work, then we ought to say so and not permit the 
trooping around-all over the country of employees of the Labor De* 
part/nent harassing business with their various interpretations pf 
the term 'comparable' when 'equal' is capable of the same defiifi-. 
tion throughout the United Statles." lOS Cong. Rec. 147()S (July 25, 
. 19()2). Congressman 'St. George-'s amendment was adopted, and in 
its version of the bill the Senate later employed similar language. 

That bill failed in conference action in the adjournment rush at ' 
th^ end of the ^7th Congress. It was reintroduced- early in the 8Sth 
Congress. In that Congress, even the use of "equal" rather than 
"comparable" terminokigy did not allay concerns that the enforc- 
ing authority— and therefore the courts— "could be cast in the posi- 
tion of second-guessing the validity of a company's job evaluation 
system." ^ 

CorruriM Glcuss Works v. Brennan. 417 U.S. 1«S (19741. Congress- 
man^ Goodell emphasized that the change from "comparable" to , 
"equal" reflected the fact that "(w|e do not expe'ct the Labor De- 
partment people to go into an establishment and attempt to rate 
jobs that are not- equal. We do not want to hear the Department 
say, 'Well, they amount to the same thing,' and evaulate them so 
they come up to, the same skill or point." 109 Cong. Rec. 9197 (May 
19();5). Congress accordingly modified the language still further, 
.using language which "ensure[d| that wage differentials based 
upon1]isna fide job evaulation plans would be outside the purview 
of the ^ct," M at 201. 

When the Equal Pay Act was finally passed. Congress modified 
the language further using language to" which the landmark Cor- 
ning Glass decisign "ensured that wage .differentials based upon a 
bonafide job evaluation plan would be outside the purview of the " 
Act." X 

One year later, Congress passed title VII encompassing a prohibi- 
tiup against discrimination and compensation on the basis of sex. 
The Supreme Court in its 5 to 4 decision in Countv of Washington 
V. Gunther instructed us t,hat title VII define sex-based compensa-* 
tion discrimination more broadly than the Equal Pay Act, and that 
it is not necessary under title VII to show that the jobs are equal 
in order to- suppgrt a charge of discrimina^.ion. . 
,' However, and most importantly for purposes of fairly analyzing 
the legislation before this committee, the Supreme Court explicitly 
rejected the notion ^hat title VII encompassed a "comparable 
worth" component, which would allow plaintiffs to claim— quoting 
'from the decision— "increased compejisation on the basis of the 
comparison of the intrinsic worth or difficulty of their job with that 
of other jobs in the same organization or comhiunity." 
, And as succinctly described by the dissentii^g Justices, the Gun- 
ther majority decision held that "there is a cause of action under 
title VII where there is direct j>'idence that an employer.has' inten- - 
tionally depressed a woman 'smalary because she is 'a woman. The 



• * 288 ' 

decision today does not approve a cause of action, based on a com- 
parison of the wage rates of dissimilar jobs." Ibi3. at 204 (emphasis 
•in original). . • . » 

The teaching ol' (iunt her, as reinforced by the opinions which fol- 
lowed, is that title yil prohibits intentional yex-ba^jpd compensa- 
tion discrimination. In Plemer v. Par^Hons-Gilbane, 713 F. 2d 112-7 (5 
Cir, 1983), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a plaintiffs 
att(ipipt to have '/the courts make an essentially subjective assess- 
> ment of the value of the differing duties and responsibilities of the 
positions [in question] and then determine whether Plemer (the^ 
plaintiff) was paid less/than the value of her p^itiort because she 
• was fejnale.'- Other courts have similarly rejectey the opportunity 
to ''engage in a subjective comparison of the intrinsic worth of vari- 
ous dissitnilar jobs, Connecticut State Employees i4«s\s'/i. v. State of 
Conn.. 31 FEP Cases 191 (D. Conn. 1983), or to" "evaluate different 
jobs'and d'etermin.e their worth to an employer or to society and 
then, on that basis alone, determine whether Title VII or the Equal 
Pay Act has 'been violated/* Power v. Barry County, Micfh, 539 F. 
Supp. 721 (W.D. Mich. 19H2), or to ^^evaluate the abstract v 
' 'worth ... to society, or to an employer' of one job as against an- 
other or to compare jobs that differ from pne another in their re- 
quirements- of effort or responsibility or to cross job description 
lines into areas of entirely different skills." Brings v. Ciiy of'Madi- 
6wz,T):}() F. Supp. 435 (W.D. Wis. 19K2). 

And I'd add that the ASFCME v. State of Washington case, 
Judge Tanner did not on his own adopt a comparable worth theory. 
He, in fact, explu:itiy noted his opinion was not a comparable work 
opinion. He merely.cited th^ fact the State on its own conducted a 
comparable worth "study, and for whatever reason chose not to 
follow it. That was the discrimination in the ASFCME, and it was 
not a judicial finding that title VII encompassecmmparable v\mrth. 

It is in this clear, legal context that the purposes^f the legisla- 
tion before this committee musi Ije'analyz^. H.R. 5092 purports to 
"we affirm ^le provisions in Fld^ral law which -declare that equal 
pay should be provided for ^4^k of equaPvalue." M has been 
shown, theje is simply _no sucn provision in Federal law. Rather, 
this legislation framed in.th^ guise ot*'required reports to Congress, 
which seek to create the Federal law it wishes to receive reports 
on. . ' ^ 

While. ^there is no dispute there is a pay gap between men <ind 
women, there is simply no support for the proposition advance that 
' the pay gap is solely the product of discriminatory pay practices of 

employers. . * 

The term discriminatibn implies the' contravention of a legal obli- 
gation. There is no legal obdigation requiring that all jobs be com- 
pensated equally, or that enu)loyerS must be seniofily gender con- 
scious in compensating jobs, ^)r that the substance of the job^is ir- 
relevant. Only the gender make-up of the job be considered. ^ 

This would be the inevitable result if the legislation befl[ore this 
committee were* enacted into law. The Ninth Circuit Court of Ap- 
peals similarly rejected the proposition that reliapce, in part, upon 
prior salaries in setting current salaried was, per se, discriminato- 
ry. This will be the circuit whicl^ will review the Washington deci- 
sion, ' ^ 



ERIC 



2Se 



ERLC 



289 



The district court. suggested 'that the existence of the wage-gap 
led to the conclusion- that all p^ior salaries were tainted to sex dis- 
crimination ancl reliance upon priov, salary was discrimination. The 
Ninth Circuit rejected this conclusion and order instead that the 
employer be given the opportunity to show irrational basis for. its 
compensation decision ' including the consideration of prior salary, 
. and that the plaintiff be given, the opportunity to show pretext in 
. the consideration of prior salary, Kouha v, Alktate Ins, Co,. 30 FEP 
Cases 57 (9th Cir. 1982). Thus, at -least one Circuit has expressly re- 
jected the propositon that the wage gap is a product of employer 
discrimination. ' 

^ It is thus clear that the pmtnse upon which H.R. 5092 is drafted 
is unfoyndecl. Further, the implications raised by the legislation 
ough), to be closely scrutinized, Itjs unquestione^that wage-setting- 
pra^ices in this country^ are complex. The Nimonal Academy of 
Sciences recognized this complexity of wage setting in its report 
"^Women, Work, and Wag^s: Equal Pay for Jobs ^f Equal Values." 

While the National Academy of Sciences recommended that for- 
malized job evaluation procedures mig^t be o^e legitimate response 
to the wage gap problem, it did not endorse any one system, oi^n- 
dorse the contept for all employers. 

, The spate of recent cases points out the complexities in this area. 
^ Employers have been found to have violated title VII when they 
did not implement in whole or in part the pay .evaluation plan they 
voluntarily undertook. To hold employers to the'legaf ^tand^rd of 
discrimination, when they voluntarily* undertake a pay evaluation 
study will serve to chill the incentives to u^iderlake the studj, .ai)d 
to dir.ectly contradict the National Academy of Sciences recommen- 
dation. * 

Second, there is k clear conflict between the concept of legally 
mandated compensation comparability, and the effective function- 
ing of Collective bargaining. 

First, it must be clearly understood that the leadership of orga- 
nized labor has vigorously and histo/icaHy opposed job evaluation 
systems as an appK)priate response to wage disparities. 

In 1980 A.F. of L. Presiderit Lane Kirkland submitted testimony 
^ to the EEOC during its hearings on the comparable work issue. In 
his statement Mr. Kirkland noted: 

An^approach that has been suggested to ascertaining discrimination in these cir- 
cumstances to look at some version of formal job evaluation to provide the neutral 
meajju-ring stick by which to determine the work of widely differing occupations. It 
is, w.e agree, an approach with surface attractiveness, but qne that we believe is tin- 
available at this time. The labor movement has, of course, long been opposed to 
moKt job evaluation because it has clearly not been a neutral device but rather a 
^ highly value-laden tool typically devised unilaterally by or for employers and solely 
in their interest. There is no basis for concluding that the job evaluation, where em- 
ployers have used it to determine pay rates, has produced equitable wage structures/ 
Certainly joh evaluation is not a science in the normal sense^of that term, but a 
disparate sej/es of systems for articulating and structuring subjective judgments. 

As M/ Kirkland clearly stated, job evaluation is ^n art, not a sci- 
ence, my it would be inconsistent to aCcord job evaluatfons to 
legal standq^rd of determining if discrimination has occurred. 

Further, the concept of job evaluation contradicts Collective bar- 
gaining where , external factors predominate in deternnining wages. 
The union position on this issue is further clouded by its support 



290 

'*for leifislation such as the Davis-Racort Act, and the Service Cori- 
' tract tVcI* which override all objective measures except for. collec- 
tively bargained wage rates in determining wagejevels on Federal 
projects. Thus, it is easy to understand the discomfort of Mr. Kirk- 
land as thts issue develops. - ' 

Third, the 'legislation before th^s committee seems to ignore the 
impact of the m^^et in determining wage levels. It is clear and 
uncontra verted tl^ women cannot" be made tD accept lower wag^s 
for equal jobs because of their sex. However, there is no law which 
says that jobs cannot have lower compensation levels because of 
tb\e surplus of potential employees, a lower requirement for th« 
skills of the job by a particular employer, or yet other factors. 

Simaly put , . 

» Ms. Dakar. W^ait a minute. Hold everything. You're saying that 
• the reason worsen are going is because there's a surplus of jobs? 
Mr. LoRBER. No, what I'm saying is if there a?:je a^irplus of em- 
ployees for any individual job, an employer can ^erfSmaly pay 

' Ms. Dakar. So women make up the surplus. Is that the way y(?u 
,view it? 

Mr. LoRBKR. No, I'm simply saying 

Ms. Oakar. Who makes up the surplus you're talking about? 
^ Mr. L6RBER. In certain jobs right now ^there's a surplus of law- 
yers* I think that men make up that surplu^. 
Ms. Oakar. Oh, I see. 

Mr. LoRBERr Dependifig on what the job is. 

Ms. Oakar. Well, does that mean automatically that the wages 
might go down? \ 

Mr. LoRBER. That's, in fact, what's i^eing on. To the extent to 
which the market seems to be operating, where there a surplus 
of applicants f(7r any job an employer will pay less, if they can. 

Ms. Oakar. We have a great shortage of nurses in my State, and 
I don't see their wages going up. 
; Mr. X^ORBER. Well, I think Ms. Schlafly cited testimony, and, 
indeed, I've seen testimony b^ the American Nursing Association 
showing that things such as fringe benefits, iihift differentials, 
weekend pay differentials for nurses are now increasing. That's a 
result of the shortage of nurses which nobody is denying. 

Ms. Oakar. But have their salaries gone up substantially? 

Mr. Lorber. Well ' 

Ms. Oakar. We often^ hear the notion that when women go into 
the 16bor force they are somehow putting other people out of work. 
I just wanted to make sure you clarified that. 

MrrLQRBER. No; that's clearly not the position we're taking. It's 
simply that where there-is a surplus for employees for any given 
job, wages will go down. 

In New York City there's not a surplus of teachers, and the 

C wages for the public school teachers in New York City now are sub- 
stantially higher than they are in the suburbs. Clearly, it's not a 
very attractive job compared to suburban teaching jobs, and the 
city has to pay more. That's' going on in New York City; where 
there is an'excess of surplus of appliifSflts for any job, the wages for 
those jobs inevitably are going to drop. 

fE^ : N ■ 29^1 . 



^ 291 



If an employer, whatever the employer is, could pay less for a 
service, less for a fLfnction than it has in the past and get that 
function performed adequately, I don't think so. ' • 

Ms. Oakak. I think that there's a shortage sometimes of people 
with really terrific secretarial skills, and that, c^oesn't. mearPthey're 
paid more. 

Mr. LoRRKK. Well, if you were hiring skilled secretaries in this 
. city, \ think you'll fmd that you would pay more, as my law (irm 
does. * 

Ms. Oakak. Well, Tlkbet you 20 to 1 that your secretaries don't 
. ' make nearly the salary that your law firm makes. In fact, maybe 
lor the record, you'd like to state the per-hour wage of a typical 
lawyer in this country. 

Mr. LoRBKK. In this country I simply wouldn't know that. ' 

Ms. Oakak. What about Washington? 

Mr. LoKFiKK. Per-hour* wage? 

Ms. Oakak. Yes. 

M-r. LoRBEK. What the lawyer makes? What the firms have to 
^pay? 

Ms. Oakak. The lawyer. 

Mr LoKBKK. I wouldn't know. Less'than $H)() an hour. I'm sure. 
Expenses for the law firms in the city are running oven.GO percent 
of that income. v . . 

Ms. Oakak. $100 an hour. $150 is more like it, or $200, $250? 

Mr. LoKBKK. I wish I knew people like that. In any event, you 
have to look at the expenses, such as secretaries, such as renU such 
as all those other factors. 

Ms. Oakak. See— what we're • talking about is— and* I'm not 
biased against the lawyers in this country— is that lawyer worth 
more than a nurse who takes care of an intensive care unit? 

Mr. LoKBEK. That suggestion-* 

Ms. Oakak. She doesn't make $100 an hour, I want to tell you. 
You know? She's lucky if she makes $7 an hour. 

Mr. LoRBER. But that's a judgment that this country is making. I 
mean, lawyers in this country are accorded the status they're aC- 
j corded in no other countries. ' , ^ 

^ / Ms. Oakar. Well, what's your judgment on that. If you were in 
the intensive care unit, would you pay a person $100? -v 

Mr. LoRBER. Of course I would. And if I were in a docket on trial, 
I suppose' I'd pay my lawyer a lot of money too. It depends what 
your needs are at the mtomeqt. 

Ms. Oakar. OK. 

Mr. LoRBER. Finally, it is ASPA's position that the legislation 
before this committee, and the development of this new legal con- 
cept, is unnecessary. There is no gap in our current equal employ-' 
ment laws which i«ust be filled by the development of fhe compa- 
rable worth theory.' To the contrary, 20 years enforcement of equal 
employment Laws has been based upon theJiierarchy 'of jobs meas- 
ured in large measure by compensation. TOe' exclusion of women 
from higher-paying jobs because of .their se* is discrimination- 
should not remedy this wrong by changing the pay level of jobs. 
Rather, we must insure that, access to the better-;3^ying job is avail- 
able. 

ER?c . 29o 



/ 292 



And I note that, at least during the rclfc adnimjistration at the 
Labor Department when I headend the agency, weBfc)ught major ac- 
tipns against such cog^panif^s as Uniroyal, which resulted in. a li- 
a^ty and a payment of $10 million to women. Against the, Honey- 
well. Co.; St. Reais; Harris Bank. These were all pay discrimination 
actions broughnin li)7() at a time when nobody wUs advancing the 
comparable, worth theory; never brought successfully. 

Ms. Oakar. We asked the Department of Labor to come to this 
hearing. They wouldn't testify. Was enforcemei;,t different under 
the Ford^ administration?, 

Wou|d you s&y there s^ a tlifference? Or do you think that they^ 
enforce the law as vigorously as you did? 

Mr. LoKBKK. Well, I don't know. I mean, the point is that we en- 
force those laws', and we did it at a time when nobody was advanc- 
ing;, the comparable worth theory. 

Ms. Oakar. No: Tm asking you for a comparison. Perhaps i\\e 
issue did not arise because there weren't as many complaints. 

Mr. LoRBKR. Well, Madam Chair, I could simply point out that 
the cases 1 mentioned were the only cases brought by the Labor 
Department throughout the 1970's, and that included the peri'od 

to 19SL It s not a partisan issue. 
*Ms. Oakar. Who is making it a partisan issue? I wouldn't care 
who was present toda3r"~if'iiiey^renrrot~enforctTig the law,- 1 think 
that's the issue. ^ 

. Mr. LoRBKR/Well, we've heard' a lot of statements, again sfbout 
one administration or another. v 

Ms. Oakar. Well, if you were with the Department of Labor 
would you advise the Department of Labor to at least send a repre- 
sentative to a hearing like tffis? 

Mr. LoRBER. That's a decision that departments make. I'm sure 
theyVe called upon to testify at a lot of hearings, and I'm not a 
representative of this administration. ^ . 

Ms. Oakar. I see. OK. ' • 

Mr. LoRBER. I'll just conclude now. 

The cohcept of comparable worth— or in its newer more innocu- 
ous term, pay equity— stands this concept. on its head. The goal of 
comparable worth is not workplace integration, but compensation 
equality regardless of the- job or the employer's need. This makes 
no sense. Nor does it make sense to force one employer who may 
have gender-concentrated jobs to^^^snualize the wages, and incur 
greater costs, yet allow a second e^^mpyer who has the same jobs 
but is gender-integrated to maintairMne current ^age rates. 

These two employers, in the same industry, and with the same 
jobs, may thus have different legal obligations regarding compensa- 
tion levels. The law cannot be so skewed as to require this result. 

Employers are required to follow the law, which requires equal 
accessv^nd equal opportunity to all jobs. ASPA believes that^fair 
and vigorous enforceme^nt of existing laws will chose the wage gap. 

Adoption of these new theories and legal requirements will cause 
confusion in the workplace, conflict among the equal employment 
laws, and the further diminution of incentives and compensation 
goals in our society. We do not believe these results are nJfecessary 
or welcome. 

Ms. Oakar. Thdnk you. 



29;^ . „ I 

'Mr. Bosco? . 
Mr. Bosco. Thank you, Madam Chair. ' . . 

rn^i."' ^a^q^v'm''^'' ^ understand yourvtestirnony, you tire? saying that 
in the ASK.ME case, the Court ruled more narrowly than I have 
been led to understand from the rest of the testimony. ' 

I have not read the case, but you are saying that the! Court did 
not rule that theje is any compulsion under -law to /grant equal pay " 
for equal work? ' • m » v j; 

.^a'- kPu1''!u was-the State undertook a' comparable 

study. What the Court said is, the State's decision not to follow this 
.• study was discrimination. There was no obligation to undertake 
th_is study, and on its own volition the Court Would not-everv 
other court has said it would not, and I ttiink Judge Tanner said so 
too. ■ ^ 

On his own, he would not compare worths of jobs. He simply 
stated, the decision by the State not to- follow its own study wa's the 
discrimination. The State called the study comparable work 
.u ; TT^r?,"^ the State enact into statute a^requirement that 
the study be followed or simply that a study be maae'-* 
' ^ believe the statute -was that the study bt? made 

Mr. Bosco And the judge said that simply because tbey had this 

study around, that they had conducted some 

Mr. LoRBKR. That is exactly right, and the theory that the judge 
b^sed his opinion u^onfwas since the study purported to state that 
cert-ain jobs, emale dominated, were underpaid, the State's deci- 
sion not to follow the study constituted intentional discrimination, 
which IS all the Gunther report said. , / 

If there is intentionally— intentional payment of a lower rate to 
a job which IS female-dominated, that is discrimination. It is not 
comparing worths, or anything like that. - . 

\ Mr. Bosco. So, in othpr words,' the court, in your opinion said 
kind of the opposite of "What you don't know, won't hurt you '' 

Mr. LoRBER. That is right. What the court 

Mr. Bosco And since you do know that you are discriminating, 
\^you must rertiedy it. 

Mr. LoRB^R. No, the study-I mean, the study simply said, the 
study on whatever the Willis study was, it allocated points to jobs- 
what the Court said is that the States decision not to follow that 
study was discrimination; the study itself simply allocated points 'l 
am not fanjihar with the intricacies of the study except to say that 
there are other compensation experts who would disagree with its 
rjndiligs, as there would be in any.' 

Mf . Bosco And you are extrapolating froiri that that we.are in 
effect being led into a snare with this legislation in the sensd that 
It calls for the^same type of studies and were they to come into ex- 
istence, the^eral Government could conceivably be held to the 
same remedial requirerrtents. . ; ^ 

Mr. LoRBER. The Federal Government is subject to title VII and 
If It undeTtook that study and jlid not follow the results of that 
Study, if the study showed the gender concentrated jobs were under 
u u concentrated jobs were undercompensated, under 

the theory of the, district court decision, the Federal Government-* 
would have substafltial, obviously substantial liabilities ^ 



er|c . . V. • ,29/ 



- The point is that the courts themselves, on their own, title VII, ^ 
do not require anybody A) undertake this study, any study suc^ as 
this.: . ' - . ^ ^ , , 

Mr. Bc)5^wr4UAi4uird to believe tliough that the court, wpu1d„infer . 
legal responsibilitie^imply based on what you happen to know or 
don't know. / , ' ^ • " 

Mr. LoRBj-iK. What that's— 

Mr. Bosco. Well, in other wordfe,' if t^he JVde«al Government is 
presently discriminating, but', doesn't have any 'study to show if,;-^ 
then it is absolved from responsibility; but—^--,- ' • 

Mr. LoRHKR. Well ' : . • 

Mr.. Bosco [continuing]. But i^ we .do commission a stlidy that 'end 
up showing that our practices are^ discriminatory,,' then^ We' 

must— — ' < * V ' 

Mr. LoRBKR. Well,, we Can. The stiidies/ did not say th^^ ^practices 
were discriminatory. It simply assiglned a* p6int value to various 
jobs. If you w-ant .to,correlat% that* point Value to dollar value, with; 
out taking account of the market, or whatever^other factors, with- 
out' taking account of competitive factors, 'then you will have a 
convpensatioa.study. > '-^^ ^ 

What the law says, at least in the corinpensation area, that was 
the Gunther.^cis\on. In the Gunlher decision the county in Oregon 
undertook a^|tudy saying- that male jobs— that, male jail guards... 
should be paid M certain l^vel; fen^le job— a-female matron paid 
at a level 95 percent of f he ^mal^s. J)^e females were paid at 70 per-- 
cent of the males. The discrinfinatioti was not that the study found 
the jobs unequal; it fe that thi courjty in Oregon conipensated the 
females at a lower rate than the «tudy would have sai^l, compared 
to the male rata Tha(< is all that decision, sai^^ That was the^ dis-. 
crimination. ' ' "^'^ 

That is what the Supreme Cou.rt said, ihe 'majority and the dis- 
sent. That is all. the decision said. That is the'law. If you want t.o 
extVhd the law, Congress shouldlpass the Taw tp do that,J suppose; 
but the law now does not reqiiii^ jobs to be comper>sated equally or 
either an employer or the Gqvernment make comparability studies. 
* Mr. Bosco. Well, I can understand that if igither the l^w in 
Washinfetbp State or the Federal law required an^ particular prac-- 
tice that it would bo a .violation of the law not to -abide by that 
practice, but you are, in effect, saying that because/they cq^nmis- 
sioned a Mudy that assignecj certain points to particular jobs, even 
though the legislature di^L '^not' pay any particular attention, or 
encode th||t study into law, it was, in effect, incorporated by refer-^ 

l&r. LORBER. that is exactly' right. And, in fact, I;mi*ght add that 
qfle o( the results as I alluded to in my testimony, thfere has been, I 
thjnk, statements by many lawyers, notifying employers>^amly 
private em^lbyers who are under no obligation legislatively^? oth- 
erwise tha{ the^y undertake a job evaluation study, an internal 
equity stucfy at , their own fjefil, the peril of legal liability. ^ 
/ There ha\r^-b^eFl a slew of cases.all cited in my testimpny which 
stand for that provision. All of those cases oppose Gunther./ 
^Mr. Boscd; Well, I warjted to be clear of your testimony, i)ecause 
I 9m going t!9xread the case carefully myself because it seems as if 



. 2% ^ , J 

what you iiay is accurate, it would almost imply that we ar(j| better 
off bfving ignorant of a lot of things thari '\ 

Mr. LoRBKR. 1 am not saying that. I don''it^ think that the person- 
nel profession would say that. What they are saying^ Oiat if the 
attemt)t to acquire knowledge brings with it a Vflljnn doTiar liabil- 
ity, I suppose taxpayers and others Mtiay be sorft^what hesitant 
about acquiring their k>rtowledge. )^ ^ 

Mr. Bosco. I have* had ^instances where, in rny political caretT, a 
little bit of acquired knowledge does me, a lot^of hacm. to^ so, 
thank you very much, ^ / » ^ 

Thank you, Madam Chair. ' - 

Ms. Oakar. Thank you. - 
' I think y/;u are misrepresenting what our legislation does. What 
we are saying isHhat the law requires that there not be discrimina- 
tion. You agree with that, .don't you? 

Mrj, LOKHKR. Of course. * . . * 

Ms. oAak. We are asking that a study be done to whether or 
not the law is being enforced. 

Mr LoRHKR. Well, but. Madam Chair r 

Ms. ()akar. Is that a problem? " 

Mr. L6RHKR. Well, but your findings of fact • • 

Ms.iOakar. Afraid of what the truth mfght^— * 
• Mr. iORi^KR. Well, I don't know what t+te.trttt-h is. Ymir fintiings- 
of fact jeerti to state that the wage gap is siruply the result^ 

Ms. Gaidar. '>^ou don't feel threatened?S'ou would not Ceel 
threatened 'at all if nurses and teachers were/paid more equitably, 
accorjding to the value of their performance. 

Do you think that thev are as Lpnportant as your profession? 

Mr. LoRBKR. Personally, I do, but I am not the person w^sets 
theirwages, nor did I set the wages 

Ms Qa^car. Do you think the free market should and will deter- 
mine wages? 

Mr. LORBKR. I think the market obviously has a role in setting 

wages. I am not— I mean, we have heard testimony 

^ Ms. O^VKAR. Is thatVhere the wages ^hould,be set? 

Mr. LoRBER. Well, what is a free market? If I repreisent employ- 
ers, iM sat down at collective bargaining and told the union, '*I 
don't vv%nt to bargain about wages. What we will both do is com- 
mission a study, and whatever that study tell^ me, that will be our 
wage rates fdr the next 3 years." 

M's. Oakar. Who^hould set the standard for wages? 
^ Mr. LoRBER. Well, in collective bargaining, it is the free play be- 
tween employers and employ— and their employee representatives. 

Ms. Oakar. Sq^ you don't agree \<^ith Mrs. Schlafly that it is the 
free market? - 

Mr. LoRBER.' Of course, I do. I mean that is one aspect to the free 
market. It is sjmply— nobody is telling; nobody is setting a stand: 
arcl for what the wages are. It simply sets a mechanism for deter- 
mining wages, and in that context it is bargaining; and in other 
contexts 1< ' * V 

•Ms. Oakar. Well, th^e is a standard. We are saying by la\l you 
can't discriminate 

Mr. LoRBER. But I ana asking what is discriminlitioij? 



f -'Ms. Oakar. On tVie basis of religion, national »origin, ^sex^/ef^ 
cetera. . * / ■ . 

Mr. LoRBKK. That is exactly right, but what is discrimination in 
compenjbation-when ypu hav^^diss'imilar* jobs. . ^ , 

Ms, Oakar. Um-huh. ^ * ' \ 

You place quile a lot of-emphasis on the market ,thej)ry. When 
slavery was to be abolished and child labor laws 'implemented, 'op- 
ponents used the sahie arguments. 
f»..-.* "^o> I think history will lend itself very well to the fact that the 
so-called free market theory is not that strong. 

Mr. Lokber; How are yon going to make the determination as to 
what job should be compensated? / 

1 mean, will the Congress establish laws saying that lawyers get 
paid X and nurses get paid x-plus 2; teachers get paid x-plus 3, or x~ . 
minus 2. • /T . 

Ms. Oakar.. We are not even asking for anything that specific. 
We are Asking that there be a study conducted to evaluate where 
discrimination exists- in the classification and pay systems. 

How did you determine that'.Hf your answer is the free market, I 
sWould say that I have some arguments about that. As a member of 
the Bankiiag Committee, I noted with great interest that the banks 
wer/y saying, we are all going to g^o bankrupt^ if we have to give 
-credit to women, whether they are/married or divorced or single. It 
is a real burden for the banks. ^ 
^ You. know what? It has proven^ the reverse that when you are 
fair, industries blossom. v ^ 

Mr. LoRBEit. I have not not heard anybody, at least the society I 
re^present/ saying anybody is going to go bankrupt; we are simply 
feaying,tltat ^ 

M^. Oakar. But you feel threatened by the whole issue o.f fair 
* equity? . ^ 

Mr. LoRBEH:.! don-t feel threatened at all, 

Ms. Oi^KAR'. From your testimony you strike me as feeling very 
threatened. I think the same of your organization. I just want to 
assure you that nobody is trying to threaten anybody. We are just 
talking about j,ystice and fairness. We honestly need lawyejfs, like 
y(|(irself that are in this kind of business on our side as much as 
the lawyers who represented AFSCME. V 

So, we are very pleased that you could come toda\i and thank 
you, Mrs. Schlafly, for coming. 

I appreciate it. , . . • 

This is the conclusion of this hearing. We will adjourn tciday, but 
will be having future hearings. 
^ [Whereupon, at 3:?4 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] ^ 

[The statemen-ts and additional inforfhation ^which follow were 

received for inclusion in the record.] 

V . ^ ^ ' 

* Statement by Judith Finn 

My name is Judith Finn. I am an economisVj^'J^d-'political scientist from Oak 
<• Ridge, Tennessee. I am chairman of Eagle Forfim's Ta*k Force on Comparable 
Worth and served as conference coordinator of our scholarly one and one-half day 
Conference on Eaual Pay for Comparable Worth which we held last October. I have 
also assisted in tne preparation of our new book, ^ual Pay for Unequal Work, A 
Conference on Comparable Worth, containing the 19 conference papers which repre- 
sent many different pei^pectives and points of view on Comparable Worth. 



297' 



1 do not believe this nation slrould adopt a standard of "compar^^bl^ worth" or 
"equjil pay for work^f equal value** instead of the present equal pay for equal work 
standard container;! in the Equal FaVj^Act. Therefore, I oppose both H.R, oOJ)^ and 
' H.R, 4;*)!^). These bills are based on tne premise that there is an objeatire means to 
nxeasure the intrinsiv Widrih of jobs perf(?rmed for wAges in the labor market. It is 
frequently assented b^ (Comparable Worth proponent's and others that the National 
Acaderpy of St%nces^ "^tudy Women, Work, and. Wci^Ps, has provicjed the objective 
me^ns to evaluate job worth better than the market. '^Some propoiients argue -that 
these, objective means should repLV'cvthe market determination of wages because 
market wages embody iiiscrimination. Others argue that tliese job ev*aluatiT)n point 
systems can b^ used to measure what market wages would be in the absence of dis- 
crimination. (Is theri' any difference?) What the NAS study actually says is fhat, 
*'In our judgement niipiUniversal standard of job worth exists, both because cvny defi- 
^ nitipn of the 'relative worth' of jobs part a matter of values ancf because, even 
for a particular definition, problems of riieasurement are likely,'*^ Far from conclud- 
ing that existing job evaluation techniques provide an objective medns of measuring 
iob'worth, the NaS study says the. use of job'evalu/ition as a standard for comparing 
ihe relative worth of jobs is one appro^ch *'which needy further development but 
shows ^ome promise"."' Oiven that this NAS study is the supp^)sed ijource of this 
crucial objective means it must be concluded that there is na scientific or objective 
meanSfto evaluate job worth other than the free market. Job evaluation^ point sys- 
tems involve subjective judgement's about what compj^nsable fjictors should be and 
what tne relative weights of these compensable factefi's should be. Such point sys- 
tems are not objective and do not j)roduce either a treasure of intrinsic job worth or 
a measure of market wages in the absence of discrimination. i 

In my judgment the search for a measure of intrinsic job worth, divorced from 
market wages, is a misguided effort. In a free economy such as ours wages are 
strongly influenced by supply and demand, RlmployOrs demand very specific skills 
and pay more fof the ^ones which are in short supply when they need them. For 
example, assistant professors of engineering' at our public urtiversities have salaries 
that are substantially higher than "comparable" assistant professors of history or 
literature.'* These jobs are "comparable" in the sense that they do not differ in the 
lev\) of skill, effort, responsibility or working conditions, ('omputing "pay equity'"* 
usirTg a single job evaluation system in a university would give these jobs the same 
evaluation points and thus not permit such a differvntial to exist. These differences 
in wages for seemingly "comparable" jobs refiect market conditions and perform a 
very important function in our free society.. Wage differential provide workers with 
the incentive to acquire needed skills. This in turn allows us to live in an economy 
that is relatively fnte of shortages and gluts, while at the same time our citizens 
have a great degree of freedom of choice in preparing fcJhand entering care(?rs. 

If the market wor ks, sft . well, some will ask, then why do these wage differentials 
between seentingly "comparable" jobs persist. The answer comes in two parts. First, 
there is a lot of adjustment to market conditions and wage differentials fiuctuate 
with this. Second, part of the wage differential persists because of preferences for 
some kinds of work over others. Let me explain: • 

U) There is ample eviderfCe that wage differentials change with market condi- 
tions. For example, the wages of petroleum geologists and petroleum engineers in- 
creased dramatically during the nine years following the Arab oil embarge of 1973.^ 
This led to a large increase in the supply of these specialists which made possible a 
large increase in exploration and drilling for oil and gas, ^ These efforts helped to 
limit spiraling oil prices and lessen dependence on imported'oil. This could not have 
happened if employers were required to identify "intrinsic job wortji" using job 
evaluation and to set wages accordingly. Similarly, the supply of nurses would pro^ 
ably be less today if employers had not been able to increase their wages relative to 
the wages of other workers over the past three decades, 

(2) Some wage diffe;*entials do persist through long periods of time. This is some- 
times due to market failure, i.e., barriers to entry such as restrictive licensing. How- 



' Do«iald J. Treiman and Heidi I. Hartmann (Hkls.), Woman, Work, and Waf^es,. Equal Pay for 
Jobs of Equal Value, (Washington, D,C,; National Academy Press), lUjB>; 
« Ibid, p. 94. • ' 
'/6ic/.; p. 91. 

^ Average salaries for new assistant professors at public universities are; $2K,(U>2 in engineer- 
ing, $19,l2r) in history, $19,002 in letters. See, "Average Faculty Salaries by Rank in Selected 
Fields, 1988-84", The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 29, 1984, p. 17, 

* See "Petroleum Industry Engineering Salary Trends", paper by Donald G, Brown prepared 
for annual meeting Society of Petfoleum Engmeers, New Orleans, September 27, 1982. 

^Ibid . * 




30i 



v298 



ever, there is no evidence that such barriers to entry fall dispeoport'ionately on 



\ 



women as opposed to men. And most of the persistent wage differentials can be ex- ^ 
plained without recours(Mo such harriers. English professors cannot cite barriers to ' 
entry in the engineering profession as a reason why they studie^literature instead 
of engineering. Social scientists who haye looked fpr barriers to entry in science and^ 
engineering cannot find them.* Rather, Englisii' professors will tell you tht?y aru/ 
doing what they like best, and perhaps that they didn't have the necessary math 
skills to become good engineers. Nor can the existence of barriers to entry explain 
fehe concentration of women in traditionally female jobs. Sex barriers in acce\ss to 
occupations startej^ ^to^^ide long ago and have not existed over ^e past tw^enty ] 
yearS: Those whcAssert the contrary would have a hard time explaining the\ast ^ 
increase in women entering good paying professions such as law, medicine, and en- 
gineering during this peritxJ. If these kinds of pers^is1#ht wage differentials between 
seemingly "comparable" jobs ar» reduced or eliminate^ we can expect a consider- * 
able loss of efficiency in the U.S. economy. ^ 

Both H,R. r)092 and H.R* 4-199 are based on a crucial assumption that is faulty, ^ 
i.e., that ex^isting male/female pay disparities are the result of "wage setting prac- 
tices which are based on the sex of employees", or to put it another way that jobs 
held predominately by women pay less because of sex discrimination. While some 
social scientists share this belief, they have never produced solid proof that this is, 
s^~in spite of the fact that millions of Federal research dollars have funded studies 
examining this question. ^ . 

I know that witnesses appeared before thi» Committee during Pay Equity hear- 
ings in I9H2 and said that at least half of the pay gap between inen women is due to ^ 
discrimination." TRey, like the recent New York Times editorial on Comparable . 
Worth, cite the National Academy of Sciences study. Women, Work and Wages in 
support of this view.-* However, proof of the discrimination Fwjjothesis is not to be 
found in this book, or in any of the many research studies ife authors review. The * 
NAS Committee which prepared this report merely reviewed the existing research 
on this question, it published n* new research findings of its own on the question of 
whether-sei discrimin^ion accounts for any part of the pay gap between men and 
women. None of the studies cited by the NAS study measure discrimination directly.. 
What these studies do is to explain as much of the differences between men and 
women in such things as years of work experience, years of schooling, and training. 
Eor ex^miple, one of these studies, said by NAS to be the best of this genre of stud- 
ies w6s able to explain 44 percent of the earnings gap between men and women 
using these variables together with some measures of-"labor force attachment". 

The remainder of the gap, they concluded, must be due to discrimination and 
other factors.'' The reaA)n they fail to simply attribute the residual pay gap to dis- 
crimmation is that they know their study did not accurately measure all of the fac- ' 
tors which could legitimately be related to productivity and thus earnings. They 
pleasure some things very inriperfectly; for example, their only measure of educa- 
tionar differences is years of schooling, ^totally ignoring the fact that men study the 
kinds of subjects which lead to high paying jobs such as engineering and business, 
much morev frequently than women. Also, the authors of the study which could ex- 
plain only 44 percent c^f the earnings gap failed to include any measure of several 
factors which are known to affect ejirnings. In the view of one prominent economist 
*\ . . the list of those factoA? producing differentials in productivity and therefore 
^ages, but which can never be controlled for statistically is far longer and potentiaU^ 
ly far more important than the short list currently entered in any computer", '^ He 
is referring to such things as work effort and working conditions which are difficult 
to measure and which these studies do not attempt to measure. And we now have 
some estimates of just how important some of these omitted factors arc^. Recent re- 



'Jonathan C. Cole, Fair Sciences: Women in the Scientific Community, (New York: The Free 
Press) 1979. 

U.S. House of Representatives, Subcbmmitt«e onJHuman Resources, Civil Service, and Com- 
• pensation and Employee Benefits of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, Pay Equity: 
Equal Pay for Work of Comparable Value, Ninety -seventh Congress, Second session, pp. Iz, 72, 
615. 943-944. 
» New York l\mes. editorial, February 17, 1984. 

'^Mary Corcoran and Greg J. Duncan, '*Work History, Labor Force Attachnietit, and Earn- 
ings Differences Between the Races and Sexes," Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 14T no, 4, 
1979-, pp. 1-20. Cited in Women, Work, and Wages .... op. cU.. p. 19. 

''Ibid. J 
Cotton Mather Lindsay, Equal Pay for Comnarable Worth: An Economic Analysis of a New 
Antidiscrimination Doctrine (Coral Gables, Fla.: Law and Economics Center), 1980, p. 34. 

O ■ . ■ . : 

ERIC 



30J - ■ ^ 



299 



ERIC 



search indicates that jol>related accidents and injuries are an important source of 
e«-rnings differentials. , 
hJ!"" (';\rnings.of workex-s in very ri«ky jobs consist in lar>,'e part of a compensatiiiK 
differential lor the risk taken. OLsen estimates that firms in industries with an aver- 
age level of accidents pay weekly wages pt-rcent higher than, the wages paid to 
workers in a risk free industry.'^' This is very significant because it is known that 
worpen workers have an occupational accident and injury rate about half that of 
men_ Ihi.s is just one of the factors that was totally ignored by all the studies of 

n!.r. ^""''i '^^'^ "i'f<ht explain a substantial 

part ol the unexplained residual -which is so often (and incorrectly) interpreted as 
being due to discrimination. * h u aa 

I hope you will not be hoodwinked by political advocates who say that economists 
have proved the earnings gap is due even in part to discrimination. If you look at 
the studies which supposedly prove " this, you will agree with me that this^simply 
isn t so. Numerical disparities between the average compensation in predominantly 
female occupations compared to male occupations i«-e not evidence oC discrimination 
against women. Lacking ^.-lear evidence to the contrary, it should not be assumed ' 
that there difjparities refiect anything other than individual choices, the fact that 
men and women tend to choose different occupations, and the dramatically different 
impact that marriage, has on the earnings of men and women. Comparable Worth 
goes far beyond the concept of equal opportunity and equal pay for equal work in 
hat It .seeks to insure equal outcomes, regardless of the causes of numerical dispari- 
ties between the wage rates in female vs. male occupations 

With respect to the effect of Comparable Worth on the well being of women, 1 
wouldMike to make a couple of points. First, raising the wages for traditionally 
female jobs would mcreasse unemployment among women and would therefore only 
benefit those women who keep their jobs. Comparable Worth would be especially 
harmful to married men (and their wives) with average or below average education- 
al credentials because these men hold most of the highly paid blue-collar jobs. It is 
necessary to consider the women who will be harmed be'cause they will lose their 
jobs altogether or because their husbands" wages will be reduced 

Second, to the extent that such a Comparable Worth standard was successful in 
raising wages for predominately female jobs, it would lead to a greater oversupply 
in those fields and redupeirfhe incentive for women to acquire the skills needed to 
work in traditionally male fields. 

Third, it is not true that the increase in the number of women who live near the 
poverty level is largfe y the result of employment discrimination on the basis of sex 
(as asserted in H.R. =m2. Sec. l.(a)). This sinjply catlnot be the case when, for the 
first time in many years. the,earnings of women are rising faster than the earnings 
of men, I he ratio of annual earnings has gone from ,'",9 tofi2 percent. A better pleas- 
ure lor this purpose is the Labor Department's "median usual weekly earnings of 
full-time wage and salary workers." This ratio was 62 percent in 1<)7<J and has risen 
abou one point a year since that time. By the second quarter of mii it was 6(i per- 
cent. •> I am not an expeM on the causes of female poverty, but I know that a major 
cau.se is_the disintegratioiW family \\h in the U.S. Large increases in the divorce 
rate and the rate of illegimat^irths are responsible for most of the increase in pov- 
erty among women of working dfee. ' 

Finally I know of no provisioi^ in present Federal law which calls for the applica- 
tion of the Comparable Worth doctrine to the private sector. I do not believe this 
nation should adopt a standard of "equal pov for work of 6qual value" instead of the 
present equal pay for equal work standard contained,4n the Equal Pay Act This 
would produce an endless morass of litigation because of the subjectivity of this con- 
cept and because of the confiicting message this would send tp the courts as the 
intent of Ungress^ In the debate over the Equal Pay Act the Congress considered a 
Comparab^ Worth standard and specifically rejected it. If you feel there is now sup- 
P^^l pomparable Worth standard, then I would urge you to attempt to adopt it 
explicitly by amending the Equal Pay Act. The legislation we are considering this 




ment Printing OfTice) 197«. (Bulletin m\). Table 1 

'»Nuncy. Rytinu. ''Comparing Annual and We«klv EarningB from. the Current Population 
"Thl -'/^ I^'bor Remew. VoL lOli, No. 4. Aprif 1983. pp. :i2-:if,. Cited in Michael b, Finn, 
w^ft ^'"ah^ Choices', in Phyllis Schlany. Ed..' Eaual Pay for Unequal 

Work. (Washington. D.C.: Eagle^Forum Ekiucation and Legal Defense Fund) 19H4, p. 117. 



0 
KJ 



im, p. 



9 



hiorninK* by attemplinK to bririK' Comparable Worth in through the back door would 
produce conflicting standards and great confusion. The Comparable Worth remedy 
is designed to replace ^market wages with the wage rates determined by studies per- 
formed by experts. Sinc^» the experts have no objective criteria to assure acceptance 
.of their resultii by all partiei. court challenges of their work are almost inevitable. 
Pixperts setting wages with the oversight of tfie coUrts is indeed an unprecc^dented 
form of governmenj^control, even if it proceeds on a firm to firm basis or only al- 
fects those who -(jt5fain Federal funds. ^ ^ 



Statkment of Sol C. Cmaikin, Pkksiuknt, Intkrnationai. Laoiius' (;armp:nt 

«^ WoKKKKs' UnIOM 

# 

"Comparable worth" has been a matter of major concern to the International 
Ladius' Garment' Workers' Union over many years. It has been the most enduring 
problem to confront us in the last half century. * 

The problem— put simply and bluntly— is tl)at garment |^orkers are not paid ac- 
cording to their "comparable worth." They are badly underpaid. 

The wages of garment workers, for instance, are* about half those-of auto workers. 
This is not due to a difference in skill; it takes as much skill to sew a seam as to 
work on an assembly line. The difference is not due to any educational require- 
ments for doing the job; the same educational level sufficies for both. It certainly is 
not due to our society's placing a higher worth on vehicles than on clothing; cloth- 
ing— along with food and shelter— is basic for survival. Yet the difference persists in 
hourly wages, in fringe benefits, rn rfnnual incorpe— and the gap grows with time. 

We are not here suggesting that auto .workers are overpaid. We do affirm that 
garment workers are under paid. 

We cite these two contrasting industries less because of their individual character- 
istics than because of the differences they represent. Garment workers are typical of 
labor-intensive manufacture; auto workers of capital-intensive manufacture. In a 
class with garment workers are workers in footwear, electronic assembly, plastics, 
metal fabrication, millinery, rubber goods, and all similar operations where there is 
a low ratio of capital to labor. All in all, they account for about half the employees 
in manufacture. On the other hand, in a class with auto workers are those m steel, 
chemicals, basic rubber, oil refining, machine tools, etc., where there is a high ratio 
of capital to labor. . u 

Wages in these two giant sectors of the economy differ not because anyone has 
ever established a greater comparable worth in one sector than in the other but be- 
cause these two sectors of the economy operate under disparate, indeed contrary, 
rules The capital-intensive sector is marked by a concentration of ownership (mo- 
nopoly or oligopoly), by administered pricing, by high productivity per worker hour; 
the labor intensive sector is marked by diffuse ownership, severe competition, and 
low output per worker. These different outputs depend less on the motivation or 
skill of the individual worker, than on tools and capitalization with which he or she 
works. The technology of the labor intensive sector is simple and inexpensive; tech- 
nology in the capiuT intensive sector is sophisticated and costly. The capital inten- 
sive sector can pass on costs to the consumer; the labor intensive cannot. 

In effect, our economy is a dual economy: the rich portion with high wages and 
the poor portion with low wages. 

We could extend our analysis to go beyond manufacture into the service economy. 
If we did, we would find that wages ?h the service economy are— on the whole- 
lower than in the manufacturing sector. We would also find that within the service 
economy there is a duality, depending on whether .it is private or public, big or 
small, labor- or capital-intensive. . . . , r x. 

The one universal trlith that runs through all of this is the irrelevance of'worth 
to wages— for most of the economy. The wage is fundamentally a refaction the 
market power of a sector of the economy, as affected secortdarily by the powejr of the 
employees within that sector. The resultant wage is a product of power not of 

^^Uity. „r , X J U 

In this analysis we have- -so far— not mentioned sex. We have not done so be- 
cause the problem of "compf rable worth" precedes the gender gap. The basic prob- 
lem is less sexual than ecorto.mic: the underpayment of huge sectors of the labo 
force that find themselves in those sectors of the economy that most closely. resem- 
ble our touted ideal of a free enterprise system of open competition. 

An examination of the sectors, hovyever, will reveal that there is a dispropertiona- 
tely high percentage of women in the second economy. There is also a disproportion- 
ately high percentage of "minorities." And from this observation- it may be conclud- 



r 



301 



ed that the wages in the .^econd economy reflect our society's discrinurmtion against 
1 women and minorities. ^ - 

^ But there is another Wii^ to look at this; namely, that our traditional discrimina- 
tion against women and minorities has pushec^'theni into occupational ghettos— gi- 
. gantic ghettos where about half or niore of our total labor force toils away at 

unrewarding remuneration. -\ 
. ^ We have been comparing one industry as against another because that is what 
^ "comparable worth" is all about. This nagging question does not deal with the prob- 

lem of workers doing the same work and getting unlike pay; there is easy recourse 
to commission and courts for that. Nor does the question apply to those doing "simi- 
lar ' albeit not the same work: thert^ are regularized r(»courses for that. The question 
of "comparable,worth"hrises when workers are doing unlike and dissimilar work- 
like sewmg a seam versus assembing a car, caring -for 'a patient versus fixing a 
■ broken pipe, teaching a class versus digging in a mine. 

How does one find the parameters— the factors— to determine the comparable 
worth oi jobs that are unlike and dissimilar? 

The bill introduced by Mary Rose Oakar proposes to set up a commission- to find 
ways, to compose-perhaps-a universal formula, by which the true worth, the right 
pay. can be determined for almost any job in our society, ft is a Herculean task. 
P'irst. al) the determinants must be found; then they must be properly weighted; 
then they must be measured on the job; and all of this must be done with total ob- 
jectivity by the original makers of the formula and by those who will subsequently 
apply it. \ \ 

We thmk this may well be a worthwhile exercise. If dgnc without prejudice, it 
^ylII reveal the profouiid injustice and inequity in our present system of pay; 
namely^ the irrelevance of worth in determining wages in most of our economy. The 
(Commission could also propose the elimination of egregious inequities in the Feder- 
-» al system, in cases where crass disparities are so contrary to common sense and so 
offensive to normal sensibili.ties as to require no complicated examination with cai^^ 
fully calibrated measures to esHtblish the unacceptibility ot present arrangements. 

However, I would suggest that the scope of the Oaker bill be widened. The Com- 
mission should have an extended power that goes beyond its search for a formula by 
which .to judge or to determine wages. It may find, as other commissions have 
found, that it is almost impossible to evolve a formula that is universal and objec- 
tive'. Yet that should not be the end of its mission. 
There are 'ways to narrow the wage and salary gap within our society even in the 
\ absence of some ubiquitously applicable measure. 

Among some of the steps to consider are the following: 

The Federal minimum wage should be adjusted in line with rising prices, A cost- 
of-living clause in the mi;iimum wage law should be keyed to a fixed percentage of 
the average wage. In the absence of such an arrangement those at the lower levels 
of wages—those in the second economy— find that the floor for wages' keeps falling 
in' relation to the average wage. The victims of such a grQwing disparity are disapro- 
portionately women and minorities who populate the second economy. 

Tax policies should J)e adjusted to allow for a higher level of exemption for those 
with a lower annualincome. Thought should also be given to lowering'the rate of 
tax for social security for those persons with an annual income below a given level. 
The present flat tax for social security is distinctly regressive for workers in the low 
Income brackets— again women and minorities. 

Our unemployment insurance system should be reexamined with an eye to abol- 
ishnng "experience rating" in levying taxes, "Experience rating" puts the greatest 
burdens on' employers in those sectors of the economy where employment is most 
unsteady. Generally, this is the secondary economy where there are many small es- 
tablishments in constant competition with high seasonality and unsteady employ- 
ment. 

Our nationaJ labor law needs reform. Over the years, the National Labor Rela- 
tions Act— originally written into law to make it easier for workers to organize— has 
^ become increasingly a law that has made it more difficult to organize. Those hurt 
\ most are, again, workers in the second economy where companies are small, unsta- 
ble» highly mobile, labor intensive. A Labor Reform Act that would restore the*bal- 
ance between employers and employees in fab{)r-management relations would con- 
tribute significantly to raising the earnings of women and minorities who are pres- 
ently employed in the secondary economy. 
. Our trade policies require reexamination. In labor intensive sectors of American 
V manufacture the decisive advantage of overseas production does not lie in superior 
technology or methods of production but in low wages. Wages as low as 14 cents an 
hour, for instance, in Asia have made it impossible for American producers to com- 

ERIC ^^'^^^ 0 - 84 - 20 ' U UO 



302 



pete. As a consequence, in the women's apparel industry, the "import penetration 
rate" is fifty percent -meaning that one out of every two pieces of apparel sold in 
the United States comes from abroad. (The penetration rate in lifbor-intensive man-' 
ulacture iti the Unhed States is much higher than in capit^intensive manufac- 
ture). So long as the women and minorities in labor-intensive manufacture in this 
country are confronted with the inc»redibly low wages paid overseas, it is not po^ssi- 
ble to elevate or even maintain present wage l&vels in the American industry. i 
Homework on industrial products should be outlawed and the law should be strin- 
gently enforced. Industrial homework undermines the wages of women and minori- 
ties in labor-intensive industries in the second economy. An auto cannot be assem- 
bled in ajcitchen; a skirt or hat or a rhinestone studded bauble can. As industrial 
homework graws^ wages Of workers, in factories will be depressed. ' 

These are some of the avenues worth exploring in a search for ways to elevate 
wages in the second economy. The above" does not neceskiKily exhaust the possibili- 
'"^ TTes'^ HUt1t d(5l5^ the need to address ourselves to conditions irt the occupa- 

tional ghettos where women and minorities predominate disproportionately. As we 
close the gap between the seconj and first economies we wiH close the gender and 
racial gap in earnings. 

If we do not ad(iress ourselves to the question of the two tier economy. W€ are not 
* likely to resolve the true problem of ^'omparable worth in the foreseeable future. 
And if we did it by moving present women an^l minorities out of their ghettos into 
better jobs, ot,hers~~probably Asiatics and Latins or other more recent entrees into 
the labor market, always heavily female, would end up in the same ghastly ghetto. 
All we will have done is redistribute misery. 



bjj^^r 



ERIC 



3 0 o 



303 



WASHINGTON OFFICE 



AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOClATIOrS 



• 1 * |4 • 110 MA 




April 26, 1984 ^ 



Ifonortible ^V^ry Kose Oakai" 

Chair, SubcxirmittPC' on Conjx^i^satiOTfi 

■^>aLnd QTif^loye<» Benefits 
CcnuuttutH' on Post Office and Civil Sei"vicG 
U.S. House of i<t?presenLatives 
406 Canrv^n House Office Buildinq 
Washington, D.C. 2051S a 



Decir Ms. Oakar: 



Ti)e A/noricaji Library Ass<x:iation welcxrrtis the op^rtiinity to state its position 
on H.H. 4^399 art] H.R. 5092, bills which deal with the issue of ecjual pay for vork of 
con^jaroljie wortii in both the f€3deral and npn- federal sectors of this Nation. 

TJk* An¥_Tiean Lilirary Asaoc:iation (AIA) is a nonprofit, educational organization 
of alnT)^t 40,000 mert\^)ers — 1 ihriir-ian^, library tj-ustees, educatiirs, authors, cuid 
(jthei f nerds of libraries — dedicated to the iinpiTivanent of library service to all 
citi2:f»nn. The Assoc iatiOrT previously has qone on record in support of the concept 
of equal pay and pay 'ocmparabi 1 ity . l^r. Elizabeth Stone, former AIA President, 
tesitifiod on this topic for ALA at a Septanber 1982 hearing oosponsored by your 
SubcoriTutLee^ 



Tixjetix^ witii oti^er library qrout>S/ AIA is ooncernod about the lew status of 
library' workers in relation to ocnparable professions and occupations; as repre- 
sentjcd by salaries and position classifications. T^ie pattern is ccxisistent in all 
sectcors of our economy, federal and non-foderal, public or private. Although most 
pay e<fiity cases need to be resolvod within the particular jurisdiction which de- 
tenr.ines, the salaries and classif icatioris, we believe that ^positive action at the 
national level ti) identify discriminatory wage setting practices and enforce federal 
laws -txj deal with such practices will Ivive a beneficial effect on vsoren in the vork 
force and will enoouracje both public sector and private sector organizations to dead 
with these issues. 

We ap^piaud the intent of these tw bills new 'inder consideration by tfie Sub- 
conruttee. Requirinc} the Equal E^nployment Opportunity j::tarTmiss ion, the Labor IDepart- 
nvent and tie Justice Dep)eirt3nent to report op actions taken to enforce federal 
statutes pnohibitinq discrimination in ocnpensation is valuable and inportant. 
Eiqually valuable is the effort to identify and rercve discriminatory wage setting 
and position classification practices in. the federal goverrment. Although the de- 
gree of wage discrimination in the federal goverment is less than elsewhere in cur 
eoonomy, federal librtirian saleuries cire still 11% belcw the average salaries for all 
professional General Schedule occupations according bo OT4's cwn published data. If 
levels of pay for federal librarians are reduced with the iirplementation of the pro- 
posed classification and qualification standards for the librarian series, GS~1410, 
then pay* equity betv en librarians and their peers in other professions in the 
.federal govermGnt will be even less achievable tivm it is today. 

ixecuTrvi orrici»i bo tAti huhon irmcT cmicaoo illinoh toen . (iii) •44.«Tfto 



<f9 




In view of our eXiperience with the Office of PeTsomvel- Manaqernstnt ' s- developnent 
of federal library job standards, we have serious reservations about entrust irwf that 
aqency with the responsibility for stud^lnq ard identifyirxi aiscriminatory wane 
setting practices and wage differentials within the position classification systan, 
as IS envisageti in Section 4 of M.R. 4599. Readincj Dr. Devine's staLGirent to your 
Subcaimittee further increases our unoase. 

His descriotion of the stand^urds develcx-rient pnxx'ss dcx?s not square witJi our 
exy«rience in the development of federal library job standaitis in a mnber of im- 
■ portant aspects. For instance, on paqe 7-8 of his statenie-nt, he declcures that: 

In the cxjurr^u of an occupational study, the occuf>ational Sf^ecialist 
develops exteasive and detailed infornvation re^iardin^i the work o*" 

the occupjation and hew it is done Ttte^^ facts and judc^n^ts are 

obtained frun key manaqaTicnt officials and su{>ervisors, enployees 

at varices levels i_n the occupation, personnel officials and .. ...... 

s{)ecialist,s, professional and technical stxrieties'^NdHions, ard other 
orqanized qioups, representatives of the acadaaic camrunity and 
others. 

Yet our at tcrpts U) assist in tht? standirds dtiveloir^t bo ren^xl^what we a)n- 
sider«i sericxis deficiencies in th<^ pro^r)S<xl suiniiards h:ive been consistently rebuffed 
b/ OPM. MorecTver, the "extensive and detailed infontvjtion tegarxlinri the work of the 
cxx-ufwtion" gathered b/ OFN "specialists'* stuciyim library jc)l)S aopoars to have scr*? ' 
major gaps. 0PM itself, responding tf) a General Account iiif] Office study on the pro- 
pfjsed library job standards, indicated that files were in disarray, that representa- 
tive ScU^^linq techinitjues hwd not been used in conducting the occupational study, and 
that data collection was so sloppy Uvit infcjnivit ion on oducatiorvil attainr^t was 
nc.>t recx^rded ft>r ab^jst half of the 300 professional federal librariMierlriten/iewed 
by the occupational sjjecialists. ' ^ 

On the basis of this inadoffjate, inccnf^lete, ard ill organized daM, 0PM 
develofxxJ a prx^)sed standard for library jobs which arnx^ars to us blatantly dis- 
criminate )ry. . proposed standard, in the last version which we have been allowed 
ti) review ^released* in Noventer 1982), was 9c> urisatisfactory that we felt that only 
totally inadequate data gather inq cxxild have led to such a misrepresentation of the 

•qualifications for modem library anc3 infoijrv^tion services work and the scope ard 
respfjnsibilitj.es of positions performing this work in the federal sector. We there- 
fore, as did the Federal Library Cam\ittee, askod OP*-! to withdraw the proposed 
standards and conduct a new, thorough aid valid cxxnioatiorvil stixly. offered to 
help with such an effort as did the Federal Library Cixruttee. It) date there has 

*been no resfxjnse to this offer fron 0PM. 

. In the proposed standards, as we have been allowed to review than, t;he 
cju^Tl if ications have been radically altered. The entry level for thc^ Master's 
Decjree in Library Science, the chief qualification for the profession, has been 
dropped U) the GS- 7 level, although the entry level for the iraster's degree in 
other male-daninated professional series has been retained at the GS-^ level, even 
thcxjgh the credit Kour requirements for tlie degrees are the same, 1^ orooosed 
classif i^tion standard*^ for professional library jobs eliminates the criteria 
(specifically Factor Levels 1-^ and 5-S ) which lead to assigments at the top step 
Of the middle level of federal service, GS~15 . Ihis effectively cans the prcrotional 




305 



Inkier for roost federal library ]Obs one cjrade be lew nale-daninated professions. No 

■ such restrictions are included in the Contract and Procuranpnt Sciries or the Auditor 
Scries, male-<i:jninated series published after the drhft of the iJliretry-Information . 

■ Service Seiies was released. Furthermore, duties, resnonsibilities and assiqrments 
for Federal librarians are sea loci at Icwer levels of" conpensation than for similar 

^ mal^-<ianinated professions in the federal sector. 

For exan^)le, where other stand^:xls (si^pifSS^T^^countant or Auditor) for rmle- 
^jTdna tod occupations call for an incumbent's work to have agency-wiOT 'ijrpact, li- ^ 
■i.bnixians at tho sanie le\'el mast produce vrork which has a national impact. Surely 
this IS <jp sigruf leant difference. 

prcxress outlined by Dr . Oevine in his- testimony before ym.ir Subocrmittec is 
f int* in Uvwjry, but the practa.ce by Ol^ durin^j*his tenure as 0PM Dir^tor has sericxjs 
discreiiancies with the theory as wu have indicated abcyv*j. Our. particioation in the 
review of draft standards, for federal libr^u^ jobs reqrettably has become an adver- 
sary process. Aftei- the storm of criticisn arcxised by the first issuance of the 
draft standards in Uecenber 198?, only throucjh Cortgressional Intervention ware wc 
• and other interested groups provided an or^portunity to carmen t, eind then only in 
the nrost liruted way, as Dr. Stone indicated in hci' testijrony before. your SubcOD- 
nuttee in September 1982. 

Furtherrx>r(\ urder Dr. Dcn'ine's leader sliip, 0*W ap^joars to be; rvakincj sweepinq 
chwinr-jes in its ovri estal>lishod policies without £iny ileal justification or empirical 
sUxiy to determine the validity of tlv? cUrrent or pro|f)sed criteria. A case, in 
pjtjint involves the policy' for evaluating qualifications based on graduate education, 
the s^->-^lled "cormon patUim". Instead of eidh^^njv^to its established polic^ 0PM 
"IS aj)j>lying revised eligLbility recpiranents on a'^eries-tjy-series tvisis begirming 
With ti^' pn>fessional library mformation series. iTiis capricious application lof 
differential eligibility criteria is discriminatory in it5> effect. With OI'M's 
current staff inc? levels and v^rklfJ^, it oould easily take until the yi^ 2000 
fore qualification stardards for the approxiiratel^ 130 profess ioral General Schedule, 
series affecttxl by the "carrtnon pattern" are revised on a series-by-series basis. Is 
this equitable? > 

The currcint policy /naXes oorpletion of naster's degree requirenents or tuo 
acadauic years of graduate study cjualifying for ajyointraont at the GS~9 level. 
Among 'Uk? prc^jxjsed chanqes which haVe be<^ most oontrov€irsiai in CFM's draft 
standards for ferleral librarians-is a proposal which will n^e only those raster's 
degrees requirmg what 0PM determines to be tuo full academic years of graduate 
€5ducation qualifying for entry into the federal service at the GS-9 level. ^ There 
are virtually no Masters in Library Science programs in this country which meet 
these nt^ requirertJnts. To the best of our knowlcadg^ , 0PM has provided no validated 
j tfetif ication to determine the validity for this proposed charrp . Nor, as the GAO 
study found,, has 0PM presented aqy oonvincing evidence on wliich to base its down- 
grading of the present lih^^lry sclera master's degree. 

Ttfb Anerican Library Association has repeatedly urged OP^ to retain eligibility 
for entry at grade GS-> for federal libreirians who hold a master's degree, without 
specifying thdt this degree must be based on tv^ years of graduate education. We 
object to OPM's arbitrturily setting up ty^ "classes" of naster's degrees: a tw>- 
y ear degree And a one-yeaur degree. A two-year degree holder would remin eligible 




ERIC 



^ 30 j 



■ >v; . 306 - 

for placement at the GS-9 level. A degree hasecj on anything less than two years of 
. . study 'wo^i Id entitle the cardida'^ for plaeannent at only the GS-7 level as will proof 
of merely one year of qraduat^ptudy . TTiis approach is especially puzzlinq in 
light lof Dr. Devine's pro^fesja objection bo "over-credential ing." 

With this backgrooncJ of experience in dealiivj with the Office of Persbnnt»l 
Ntmagatent, wt« feel that this agency as new constituted and directed is incapable 
of cariWirtc] out the requirements of Sec. M{b) of H.R. 4599, bo study discrininabory 
practices arxi. propose ways bo eliminate them. Iherefore we urge that such a study 
be carried out by or^ of the-well-krcwn private sector organizations with ackncwl- - 
edqt'd eij<.'.rtise in thiva.rea, reixirtiixj to'tho General Axounting Office which 
wiould in turn report ta the President and a)nt|ise^* and maike reoanendations for.^ 
elinunat\ir>? discriroirotory practices found. OnTy in this way, we'oonclude, can^ an 
in biased! study be d(velopid. Simlarly we feel that the rcixjrting reT?p3nsibil i ties 
of Sec. 4(d} of H.H. 4599 should be assigived also bo GAD. Without such requirenients, 
wi' do mt think tKiL H.R. ^99 can achieve its intended f^»5*^- In out Opinioi, 
"rr^.' OPM at this ix)int in its history, sad bo say, is not caoable of carrying out the 

rrvu^dti; in this biU . UHfier U)f current leadership, such a study oould well beocme 
Ux» vehicle to irtensify, rtot i;)fl.tiqate wage discrimination in the fedsral govern- 
ment. 



i 



As It has in the past, the Amt^-rican Library Association will continue to WDrk 
for pi^y etjuity within our professicn ai<well as with ocialition grouDS such as the 
National Ccrrruttee m Pay F/^ity dealincj with the issue across all occufsat ions and 
professions. Our ircrrxiix) President E.J. Josey will be esta^>l ishinq an ALA 
Ccnnission cn Pay tkjuity to give even greater visibility to these issues within 
librarianship. Wl- also look forward to leadership from Con^nress bo addre.ss these 
issues. Such leadership must result in actions to alleviate the nersi stent wage 
gap for woirt'n ard to provide e<:|ual pay opfwr turd ties for men and women in all levels 
■ of govermxint and ^htj professions. 

Sincerely, 

. Eileen D. Cooke 
Director 

AIA Washington Of f ice 

EDC:ps ■ . ' • ^ 



1 



ERIC 



307 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED" BY LINDA A. PUCHALA, PRESIDENT^ * 
ASSOCIATION OK KLIGHT ATTENDANTS. AFL-CIO'" 
^ TO THE. 

'SUBC0M>!ITTEE ON COMPENSATION . AND EMPLOYEE BENEI-ITS 
COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE 
.U,S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

* 



✓ 




On behalf of th© AssociaCion of Flight Attendants, representing 
21,000 flight attendants on 14 airlines, I appreciate this* 
opportunity to present our views on the issue of pay equity, and 
on HR 5092, the Pay Equity Act of 1984. * 

The Association of Flight Attendants supports^ the goals of 
HR 5092--to identify discriminatory wage-setting practices,, to 
encourage employers to comply with current laws, and to reaffirm 
the Federal Government's responsibility in enforcing preseritS^w. 
We also heartily cf5mmend this subcommittee for providing this 
forum for pub lic^ discuss ion of this issue. 

An example of invidious pay discrimination in the airline 
industry between male and female workers was found in the practice 
of creating pur^portedly distinct "flight attendant" (or, as they 
were" then known^ "stewardess") and "purser" positions. While 
both appeared to perform precisely the same^ functions on board 
^' the aircraft, the purser was alleged to have additional "supervisory" 

V 




31.; 



" 308 1' 

I . - ^ 

responsibilities which merited a substarc ially higher pay ra'ce 

thnn provided to other flight attendants. Not even the alleged\ 

differences in dut ies , .hov/eve r , could explain the airline's 

restriction of the purser position solely to males, ^hile the 

flight attendant position was overwhelmingly . fejnale , This . 

^sit^uation culminated In ^^e landmi^rk Laf fey v. Northwest Airlines 

case first brought to the courts ^n the early I970's. ( Laf fey 

V. Northwest Airlines , Inc., 366 F.Supp, 763 (D.D.C. 1973), 

374 F.Supp. 1 382 (D,D.C. -1974) . aff'd in part and vacated in part . 

5f;7 F.2d 429 (D.C. Cir 1976).. cert . der>>ied , 434 U.S. 1086 (1978)). 

In this case, the courts pie reed through the purse r /stewardess 

"charade and saw the situation for precisely what it was: a blatant 

form of discrimination in pay on the basis of sex. When the 

"different" jobs were analyzed, the courts had no difficulty in 

concluding that they requi red .equaf skill, effort and responsibility 

in sum, they were functionally equivalent. Nor could the alleged 

differences mask the true goal of the airline: to designate males, 

and only mal^s, as "in charge" of the cabin, crews The courts 

concluded there was a clech: Violation of the Equal Pay Act and 

of Title VII of the Civil Rights, Act, and required the female 

flight attend'ants' rates of "pay to be "equalized up'' to the 

purser pay levels . . ^ 

Even after the District Court announced its decision, 

♦ 

Northwest refused the union's demands in negotiations to eliminate 
the purser/ flight attendant, i.e., male/female, pay disparities. 



y 

«• / 



i 



0 1.' Vir-- 



t 



309 



xA's a result of the Company's incrffns igence , no agreement was 
reached for several years (while Northwest pursued its 
unsuccessful appeals in the courts)., and the flight attendants 
were not only dep^-ived of the equa I ii:a t ion in pay required by . ^ 
the law, but of any p^y increase whatsoever, 

Despite the elimination of this blatant example of 
discrimination, our flight attendant membership, who ar^SS-QO^ 
female, continue to feel the impact of pay discrimination through 
the shadow cast ovt»r our col I ec t i've bar ^ain ing by 5he traditional 
sex- related pay inequities in the general U.S. workforce. At 



1 

th 



e bargaining table our members fii^Ht the insidious perception 



/ 



hat the flight attendant job Is worth "less" because i t is • 
predominately female. Compounding this bias is the lin^e^r^g 
erroneous stereotypic, sometimes shared by airline management, 
that fligb|t attendants' choose their jobs for the "glamour" or 
for travel opportunities, but-not fox the salary. 

Like the general population of women workers, however, flight 
attendants work--and work hard-'^because they neied the nion^^y Co 
support themselves and their families. Our members have an 
average of 10-11 years invested in -their . careers . They are 
t'ypically in their mid-thlrt ies ; approximately one-half are mai^ied 



and one-third have children. 

Despite the fayct that twenty years ago, Title VII of the xl 
Civil Rights Act (3fctlawed sex (J^^scrimination in compensation, 
continuing chroni^^ problems with pay inequities are well documented, 
and are familiar to *this a.ubcQttanit tee . •/ 



X 



1 j 



310 



Althoui^h existing, law provides a sound lei'.i^l basis for 

achievin^j pav equity, ontorcetnent of the Law has been sadlv 
■ - / ■ V 

nev', lec tedf>*. Thi.^ is Iarp,elv dL\i to inactivitv of the lead ' 



enf or ceiWlc cig^ncy . the Equal' Employment Opportunity Coiftmission, 
and t h€D this sefidsto employers Chat pay discrimination ^ 

is not very wrong. The proDlern also stems f roru urnmense 1 y 
'difficult and expensive p^cedures. incluc^in jRxtens ive job ' 
studies, which private parties must underta^p in their investi-^ 

W / ■ . 

gat ion and li^^itation of pay discjriminat ion cases, 

HR 3092 proposals for the EEOC to carry out educational 
programs on el iminat Lhg pay discrimination and- to conduct research 
on wage S(?tt»ing 'technic^ues could provide valuable assistance to 
labor "unions and other groups which otherwise could not afford 
to conduct such studies on their own. 

The bill's proposals for the EEOC to report to the President 
and Congress on^its pay equity enforcement activities are 
commendable, because they seek to hold that agency accountable 
for its act ions--(5r* inac t ion- - in this arena. Unfortunately 
however, since existing law is not enforced, the success of 
enforcing the proposed bill, if enacted, is quest ionnabl e , 

- As .we have found ^rom our experience with airline deregulation, 
unless a proposed statute is very specific about the content .and 
scope of any remedial provisions, the agency left responsible 
for implementing these provisions often implements^either no . 
program or a program that- does not fully implement thq statutory 
protection. I-'or that reason, it might be helpful if HR 5092 
were more specific regarding the EEOC obl'igations to "conduct 
and promote" research and to 'Mevelop and impltwgej^t a program 
to provide yfce^chnic a i assistance. 



That(k you for this opportunity to express our views on 



this*^ issue , 



f 



\ 

1 



ERIC 



311 



Statement 

' Edwin R. Clarke, President 
E. R. CLARKE ASSOCIATES, INC. 
725 Timber Lane 
Lake Porest, 11^ 600^5 , 

to 

Subcommittee on Compensation and Employee Benefits 
Con^^resswoman Mary Rose Oakar, Chair 
U, 3, House of Representatives 
Washington, D, C. 20515. 

for consideration 
, * Invcbnnectlon with 

— \{ 

H. R. ^599^The Federal Employees'" Pay 

( Equity Act of 198^ 

H. R. 5092. - The Pay Equlty^Act of igQl^ • 

April 198k 

, As a representative of U.S. business and Industry with a 

career spanning more than 30.years 1^ the coji^e tl tlve, profit, 
seeking. Job-providing private sector ' of^^la country^s ecort- 
^ omy, I am most (grateful for the opportunity to submit this 
statement l^onnectlon with the Coipmlttee's consideration 
of two Important pieces of proposed legislation, H. R. U599, 
15;;e Federal Emoloyees* Pay Equity Act of 198^*, and H. R. 5092, 
. The Pay Equity Act of 198^. My name Is EdTwln R. Clarke, My 
present occupation Is that of provldlijg consulting services 
In all phases of Employee Relations and Personnel^Practlce, 
Includlng^^Unlon relations, corapens^itlon clans, employee 
b«iefita», e^.. My statement ' today presents my views as a ' 
, *::,F^o^esslonal with extensive experience In employee compenw* 
-^satlop systems. I also s{)eak for the American Federation of 
.3mall Business, a national organization with more than 25,000 



ERIC l 



3L: 



312 



members, headquartered at "^0? South .Dearborn St., Chicago, 

of which I am a member. J * ■ 

From 19^6 through 1983 I worked In the Employee Relations 
and Personnel Administration function In several U, 3. man- 
ufacturing companies and wlfes In charge of the activities of 
my employers for this function since 1955. iThroughout my 
career, t^pugh my >resDonslbllltles encompassed many other 
aspects of the employee relations function, I was Personally 
Involved with position-classification systems, and^wage- 
setting procedures. The specific activities Included nego- 
tiating and administering the organisation of Job duties Into 
Job classifications, the application of Job evaluation criteria 
to Job classifications, the assignment of Job classifications 
to wage grades, the determination of the wage rates to be paid . 
for each wage grade, etc*, and the same for office and 
management classifications except that no Union was Involved. 
Careful attention to eliminating and avoiding sex discrimination 
In all wage system design, and In the. wage rates pursuant to 
these systemsi has-been a' high- priority aspect of my In- 
volvement In t^ls activity. 



The purpose of the two bills, to, seek out and eliminate seX- 
t)ased wage discrimination. Is laudable and noncontroverslal* 
The bills seem to suggest, however, that wage rates which 
are the competltlv^e, market-place rates for any Job class- 
lfl6atlona In question could be challenged as discriminatory. 
3ex-based wage discrimination, If It can »be shown to be present 




313 



In aify^_£i^ii«'*A^n, Is most difficult to quant\fy because the 
wage dUfeVentl^s that exist reflect other forces also; for 
example, supplyland demand for particular skills ♦ As a result 
I have .come to the . be lief that market-place wage rates In- 
dicate the best and fairest measurement of the value of a 
Job classification, rooresentlng the comnosl-.te of all the 
forces which determine that value* Any wage-setting procedures 
that may be devised, therefd^e, should be required to con- 
vert Job evaluation point values to market-Dlace wage rates • 

H.R# ^599.18 Intended as the vehicle for seeking out and 

eliminating sex-based wage discrimination In the Federal ^ * 

government. However, It sefems to- apply only to that portion 

of Federal employees covered by the General Schedule. Why It 

has not been designed to apply to the craft, etc., classifications, 

another very large group of employees covered by the 

Federal Wag^ System (FW3), is not clear and ^eems Incpn- 

slstent. 

H, R, ^599 would be Implemented principally by the Office 
^^jjlL^Personnel Management by reviewing the joosltlon-classlf Icatlon 
. system (wage-setting praci^lces and wage differentials) which 
'exists pursuant to Title 5, Chapter 51>^nlted States Code. 
However,^ this system Is the system which the Office of 
gersonn^l Management created In Implementation of the 1978 
Civil Service Refoym Act. One provision of the Act was that ^ 
there 'should be^ equal pay for work of equal value. Other 
key provisions are (Section 2301(b)(3)) that pay rates ar^ to 



4 V 



ERIC * . , 



314 

b« determined "with appropriate consideration of both national 
and local rates paid by /employers In the private sector", and 
(Section 5301 (a)(3)) that "Federal p<^y rates be comparable 
with private enterprise pay rates^for the same levels of 
work*" Certainly, therefore. It must be presumed that the'' 
grade assignments of the classslf Icatlons and the wages paid 
fcom]Tlled with the Act, esoec^ally \he requirement that there 
should be equal pay for work of equal value; In other 
words, regardless of whether the classification populations 
were predominately male or female* It will be unlikely, then, 
that 0PM will discover classifications which have been ln~ 
correctly graded* The review will be benef^lal, nevertheless 
However, Section 2 (b)(1) of H. ^"599, which seems to call f 
changes In the present system cf evalu*^tlng General Schedule 
Jobs, seems unnecessary In view of the fact that the Present 
system was Instituted under the "equal pay for work of equal 
value" directive* ^ 

At this point It Is appropriate to st<\te my conviction, 

developed over many years of working with 'wage- sett lVig_^^ '"^X^.. 

* 

systems', that all systems of Job evaluation are Inadequate to 
the task of establishing true relative values for Job 
classifications. Basically the reason Is that the values 
Indicated are the result of factor selection and weighting 
as determined by the person or group that had a certain 
objective In making tl^e factor selection, and asslgrllng the 
•weights* Perhaps the objective was to match market-place 
wage rates* Perhaps the objective was to prove .that sex- ^ 



A; ■ . 

315 

based. wage discrimination was present^ Whatever objective 
there. may be can be pretty well achieved by the designers 
of the system. A requirement that Job evaluation point, values 
be translated to market-place wage relationships Is not a 
perfect method 'of minimizing the weaknesses of Job evaluation 
systems, but I believe It Is the best method available for ' 
giving Job evaluation realistic validity. 

When Job evaluations are performed with deliberate disregard 
for market-^place Information, the results are Invalid, trouble 
some and costly. An example of such |.s a recent study In- 
volving a sample of State of Illinois ' Jobs commissioned by 
the Illinois Commission on the Status jof' Women. The Job 
evaluation system chosen gave an average of approximately 
75< weight to Knowledge and Problem Solving, 203< weight to 
Accountability, and the rest of the weight to Working Con- 
ditions, which. In that system of evaluation encompassed 
Physical Effort, Environment and Hazards. The 5 Jobs In the 
sample of 2k Jobs that required out-of-door, all-weather 

work Involving physical effort and relatively hazardous 

below 

conditions ranked fqr/thelr Relative rankings In market-place 
wage rates. The Job ^evaluation system chosen haooens to be 
described In the Interim renort to the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission of the COm'olttee on Occupational " 
Classification and Analysis, National Research Council, 
entitled Job Evaluation^ An Analytic Review In the following 
quoted words i '•---used primarily for the evaluation of 
executive and professional Jobs lan^age used In factor ^ 

V * . 



4 

316 



definitions emphasizes subjective Judgments to an even 

greater degree than mos^ Job evaluation systems virtually 

no weight Is given to working Conditions . As a result of 
this study one Charge has already been filed with thfe Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission against the State of ^' ^ 
Illinois citing the relative rankings In this study as 
evidence that sejc-based wage discrimination exists. Court 
proceedings haye been promised as soon as the EEOC com- 
pletes Its phase of tv>e .handling of the Charge. »- 

I wish to emphasize that the Illinois studV Intentionally 
disregarded market-place Information and did not attempt 
to relate the rankings produced by the Job evaluation process 
to the realities of the Job market* 

Any one of several other Job "evaluation systems that exist 
and are well known could have been used In the IlllrtOla study. 
Each one would have produced a different relative ranking of 
the Jobs In the sample, depending on th^ factors used In ^ 
the evaluation process and the weights assigned by the 
designers of the system. Without xloubt, however, each of 
the designers of these available systems would give assurance 
that his system design Is free frota sex bias. Which system 
should be used then?. Would It be possible to determine the 
existence of sex bias and Its Impact on wage rates In 
any such circumstances? * 

H. R. 5092 will Involve the private sector as well as all 

public emnloyers* It will cause Federal agencies to contact 
private and public eraplbyers using the "equal pay for work 

of equal value* concept. Results ^llke those described re- 
sulting from the Illinois study will be the consequence unless, 
as In the Federal 03 system, a directive Is Included . that the 
market-place must be the true measure.. of relative classification 
rates. . 



erJc 



32<J 



317 

» 

Matotalnlng the vigor and competitive 8tren:gth of our 
' free enterorlse system Is of gre=it Importance to nil citizens 
Including women. A vigorous and successful business 
climate means Job opnortunlt^les . Successful business 
requires freedom to man«ige and do the things that may be ^ 
necessary to serve customers with comoetltlvely-prlced 
goods. The business that Is competing against Imports 
probably will not be able to nay the -same wages for the^ 
, same Job In a company that has only domestic competition 
to worry about. The Imposition of wage scales by outside 
authority, esDeclally wage scales derived In a system of 
Job evaluation* designed to meet a social goal, would be 
most unfortunate and would certainly have an adverse 
Impact on the vigor of business In general and on the 
availability of Jobs. The Imposition of artificial, non-' 
market rates In the public sector will strongly and adversely 
Impact the private sector. 

Elimination of sex-based wage discrimination. If in fact it 
^ .exists, will certainly be assisted by focusing attention on 
It, rooting It out whereever found. However, othe©. measures 
different from Imposing artificial wage rates',^ eta. , should 
be emphasized In the effort. Among measures of this type 
that I suggest are i much greater mibllclty about Job 
openings, rates oft pay, and Job requirements |' ^training 
programs and facilities In which females om l>am the 
skills that the market-plac3 is rewarding best; counseling 
programs Irf which females oan survey their own ijiterests" 
and talents, IsaiTi what steps are.^ t*equlred to become em- 
ployed in kinds of employment thejr decide upon, and make 
career plans* 



ERJC 35-003 O - 84 - 21 3 2 i 



318 



The Male - Female Income Gap 

Statement of Robert J. Van Der Velde 
'% to the r 

Subcofmittee on Compensation [and Employee Benefits 
Conmittee on Post Office'and Civil Service 
U.S. House of Representatives 



I am a Research Assistant at the Northern Ohio Data & Information Service 
(NODIS) in The Urban Center at Cleveland State University and this statement 
details the preliminary findings of our study of the male-female income gap 
using data from the 1980 Census. 

Our data confirm what many already suspect, which is that there are 
substantial gaps between the incomes of men and women, even men and women 
with the same education, the same age. and the same .occupation. These gaps^ 
exist in s^ate government, local government, and tp an even greater extent 
in the private sector, dur data suggest that the. complex matter of gender 
' discrimination in employment is worthy of further legislative examination. 

Numerous studies have beert done national ly exami ning the male-female 
income gap. The Census Bureau reports that national ly. working women now 
earn 62< for^very dollar earned by men. Sociologists, et:onomists and others 
have.-examined this issue to try to explain the income gap. With the recent 
release of data from the 1980 Census, we at NODIS are n6w able to begin 
to look at income patterns both locally and state-wide. 

We .have founti that women In Ohio earn 55^ for every dollar earned by^ 
men. The median income in 1979 for full time employed males was $17,005, 
but for women the median income was only $9,315. (Chart 1). 



9^ 




319 



The good news is that women who work in state government are somewhat 
better off than their counterparts in the private sector. Women in state 
government earn more than women working for private companies, and they 
have Incomes more similar to those of men in state government. Women em- 
ployed by private companies earned less than 2/3 (or 58c) of every dollar 
yarned by men, while women in state jobs earned 85c for each dollar earned 
by men. Even thoug[h state government women are closer to state government 
men, they stil.l lag behind the earnings of men. 

Chart 2 shows that the income gap between men and women with the same 
educational levels is lower for women in state government than in the 

r 

private sector. Two factors account for this. First, ^women in state 
government earn somewhat more than women in private companies. Second, 
men "in state government jobs are earning substantially less than men in 
the private sector. The combination of these two factors means that the 



gap betweer^en and -women of the same education is smaller for- s fate 



r^Tme'n 
government workers. 

Young women earn incomes closer to those of young males, although 
there are atiU substa^itial gaps between thi sexes. (Chart 3) 

Becaus^of our location, much of out^ study has focused on data for 
the Cleveland area, although we see many of the trends in thejj^^r^and 
region reflected across the state. 

. When we examined the income gap between men and women in Cuyahoga 
County, we found that disparities between men and women are present regard- 
less of the age, education and^ccupation of the worker. 

Women earned less. than men with the same years of education in nearly 
every occupation category in Cuyahoga County. Women earned hfgher salaries 



ERIC 



323 



320 



than men in only a few predominatly female occupations, such as librarians, 
waitresses and data entry workers. 

Chart 4 shows that female median income remains relatively stable 
with'aqe, while income for males rises at a much steeper rate and remains 
consistently higher than female income. 

The i.ncome gap remains when analyzing incomes of men and women who 
are similarly situated that is, men and women who have ^he same age, 
education and occupation. In analytical groups of similarly situated men 
and women, only .16 of over 500 groups had women earning more than men, 
and only a few*^f these groups accounted f or subU^ anti al numbers of people. 

Over 100 years ago, a Justice of tbc U.5, Supreme Coui^t wrote in 
-denying a woman admission to the bar "fME NATURAL AND PROPER TIMIDITY AND ' * 
DELICACY WHICH BELONGS TO THE FEMALE stx EVIDENTLY UNFITS IT FOR MANY OF 
THE OCCUPATIONS OF CIVIL LIFE". While iTl^R^ women hold highly responsible 
"positions in our society, our data show that the^entimentjpthich lay be- 
hind this 19th century view remains strong even today. 

^ Working women ar% highly concentrated in only a few traditionally 
female occupations. A third of all working women in the Cleveland m^ro- . . 
polit%n>^rfea are in just 40 out of JJoO occupations. Only 14% of women 
are in occupations that have roughly the 'same number of men and women,, 
while more than half of all occupations In the region-,are predominately 
male. 

We are certairily n^j^t experts in the field of gander discrimination. 
We have only just scratched the surface of the data on the Ohio male- 
female income gap. There are a number of other factors that we want to. 
examine -- factors that may explain much of the income di ff ernce between 
men and women, * . ^ 




f 



321 



For example, women leaving their careers for even a short time for 
chi Id-rear'i^ig may have significantly lower salaries. Other factors, such 
as veteran preferences; single-parenthood; spouse's education and career; 
and numerous other variables may also be significant.- ■ 

We plan on continuing our analysis of the income gap, looking at these 
and other factors, but we have come to some preliminary conclusions based 
on our first look at the 1980 Census data. 

Fir^t. while we cannot scientif icalYy provTThat sex discrimination 

exists, we cari state that there are. dramatic disparities between men and ' 

women, even between men arid women of the- same a^e, with the same edu-. 

cation, and in the same occupations. 
# 

Second, disparities between men and women are greater in the private 
sector than in state government." Even though state government appears 
to be more equitable than the private, sector, there are gaps between men 
and women in state government-, so the di spari tie^ must be examined^ for 
both state government and private b.usiness. 

The data suggest that the issues of gender discrimination are clearly 
complex, and that the problem of the male - female income gap in both the 
public and private sectors is worthy^of^ further legislative examination. 

We appreciate this opportuni ty . to present you with what we hope will ^ 
be^ useful information for the committee's work. ^ ' ^ 



1 



I 



ERIC. 



MEDIAN INCOME BY SEX 

OHIO. 1979 ' " \J 




ERIC 



MEDIAN INCOME SEX 

■ OHIO. 1979 



*« 25000 

Private QO- 
Males 



INCCME 



Private Co. 
Females- 



20000 



State Govt . isooo 
Males . . 



State Govt, 
Females loooo 



9000 



0 

< H.S 




Sone H.S. 



H.S. Gra*d 
EDUCATION 



32/ 



Some Coll 



College 



Privat* 
Company 

. State 
Government 



FEMALE CENTS PER MALE •$ 

Ohio. 1979 



INCOME 




25-^4 



35-44 



45-54 



55-64 



00 



AGE 



ERIC 



326 



STATEMENT OF TERRY LEE HART, PRESIDENt/fEDERALLY EMPLOYED \^ 

WOMEN LEGAL AND EDUCATION FUN D_,^ INC. 

The Federally Employed Women Legal and Education Fund, Inc. 
(FEW LBF) is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization established in 
January 1977. It is jnanaged by'a volunteer Board of Directors, 
most of whom are currm?^''^ former federal employees. They ' . 
Include attorneys, EK) specjallsts, federal managers, and EEO. 
complainants. FEW LEF works exclusively on behalf of Federal • 
employees, dr applicants for federal employment, to eliminate 
discrimination based on sex, religion^ race, national origin, 
handicap, age, marital status, o^ >awful political a^iliation. 
To -achieve this purpose FEW LEF undertakes educational, research, 
and legal activities. ^ 

Because FEW LBF believes that 'pay' equity is a major compo- 
nent of equal employment opportunity for worO<ing women in federal 
service, we strongly believe that the federal government should 
provide a leadership role in achieving this goal* We disagree 
with those leaders of the business community who argue that pay 
equity represents a radical violation of the free market; more- 
over, we are deeply concerned that the Reftgan Administration has 
reversed the positive approach taken by former EEOC Cbair Eleanor 
Holmes Norton, who declared comparable worth to be the issue of 
the '80^, We also see ^pay equity as an' important issue of the 
•80s for fiderally employed^ women , and axe delighted that the 
Subcommittee on Compensation and Employee Benefits is moving to 
translate pay equity from abstract concept to reality. ^ 

Sex segregation in jobs and depressed pay levels have been' 
as much a problem for women inside the federal governir-ent as for 
their counterparts in society as a whole. The vast majority of 
federally employed women remain trapped in occupational ghettos 



mi mn . wubue 



327 



at lower levels of pay. According to 1982 figures, fi^ty^seven ' 
(57) of evAry 100 women in th6 federal government work in clerical 
Jobs; only ten (10) of those^ 100 wotk in professional jobs Ninety 
nine percent (99%) of the secretarial series are women (GS-4); ' 
85% of the Library Technician series are women (GS-5);,and 91% of 
the MedicM Record Technician series are women. Although womeii 
hold only 2^% of the professional jobs', .they are highly concen- 
trated in the stereotypically women »s Jobs within the professions. 
Thus, for example, 99% of, the Public Health Nurse s^ies ar^ 
women (GS-9), and 96% of the Home Economics series are women (GS- 
10), " 

Federally employed women are at the bottom of the wage scale 
not only throughout the spectrum. of federal jobs, but even within;, 
the sajpe job series. Seventy-eight (78) of every 10 federal 
women are in the lowest GS grouping (GS 1-8); 22 are in the 
middle grade (GS 9-15) and only 4,1% are in the Senior Executive 
Service- (fdrmerly grades I6-18)i Men also outearn women in each 
of the 22 major occupational ^groups , and in all but 43 of the 449 
specific job series in the federal white-collar service. Within 
the four major occupational gi^oupings, major salary gaps exist 
betwefeli men and women. Men earn $1,45 for every $1 earned by 
women in professional Jobs; $1,29 for ev^ry $1 earned by women in 
^administrative jobs; $1,26 for every $1, earned by women in tech- 
nica^obs; and $1,27 of every $1 earned by women in clerical 
Jobs, - . 

In our view, a primary cause of the continuing low 'wages of 
traditional women's jobs in the federal workforce is the General 
Schedule Job classification system, which perpetuates institutional 

\ 



\ / ■ 

331, 



328 



sex discriminatioa. The General Schedule Was expressly designed 
in 1949 to preserve the pay and job relationships established in 
the 1923 Classification Act, In fact, according to government 
officials, the hierarchy of» federal white collar work has remained 
the same since 1923, This in tan tamounty to an admission that the 



system still incorporates' tradltionaLjPbcietal sex discrimination 
in the form of lower wages for women in women's jobs, ^ 

The General ^Schedule classification system is a ^factor eval- 
uation system which, although it has the potential for implement- 
J.ng comparable worth through objective measurement of traditionally 

male anff female jobs, is far from bias free, A study coijnmissioned 

■ ' ■ • . ■ -"^ 

.by the Efc'OC released in the'Fall of 1981 by: tbe -prestigious 
National Academy of Sciences, "Women, Work and Wages , -^iJ^qU'^JL. Pay 
for Jobs of Equal Value," discusses the features of most job ■ ' 
evaluation systems which foster, rather than eliminate, sex dis- 
crimination, (pp. 73-90). These features are, unfortunately, 
also found in the federal factor evaluation system. Mo^ notably, 
those factors which are key components of women's jobs are given 
little recognition and weighting,. The supervisory controls factor, 



which is more likely to characterize male jobs, is more hea 



weighted than the complexity factor, which is more likely to 
characterize female jobs. Other underwei ghted factors character- 
istic of women's jobs inclu(^e speed and fine njotor requirements 
(e.g. tjcping, data processing); level of physical and psychological 
danger (social work, nursing); and negative work conditions (noisy 
typewriters and ringing telephones, characteristics of secretarial 
work). :We believe that the underweightdng of these factors under 
the General Schedule classification system contributes substantially 



ERLC 



• 329 

to the low grades for women's jobs in the-'federal sector. We 
trus^ that, under HR 4599, 0PM will give serious consideration to . 
the sex-discriminatory underweighting of these factors which, 
characterize women's jobs in "federal service. 

We have some concerns about the present wording of HR 4599, ' 
which we would like to :share with the Siibcomni ttee . • 
1. Subsection 2 of the Def i nitions|section , Section 3,^ 
presently defines "discriminatory -Wage-setting practices" as the 
"setting of wage rates paid for jobs held predominantly by female 
workers lower ' than those paid for jobs held predom^lan tly by male 
workers although the work performed requires comparable . education . 

/^afning, .skills, .experl^cfe ,y&f ^rt , an> respoLi bi li ty ! and is . 

A^iifoitelW ^und conditions." We believe thl8_r.. 

is too ri-RTTi^^y ifiQiy^^i^n ©r discrimi hatory wage-setting prac- 
tices, and wouldi n^ot cbVei;, suc^-obvious inequities as higher 
payment to male-dominated laborer jobs^^ which often require less 
than comparable education and trai^ing^ Irt" ot^R^arison with female- 
dominated jobs such as professional nursing an^' school-teaching* 

Also, it is questionable whether the other factors inclpded 

skills, experience, efj^^, and responsibility — woulcf compa- 
rable either for these two jobs. 

The language also could encourage a narrow, fat^tor-tiy-f actor 
comparison of jobs rather than an overall comparison of ' their 
w6r4:h as a wholes The present language sounds similar to'the 
federal Eqiial Pay Act, which also covers skills, et fort J respon- 
sibility and working '^conditions, and hag been held to reciuire 
that Jobs be equal in each separate factor, not just 'in 

totality of factors* See Angelo v< Bachrach Instrument 



555 



\ 



J 



330 



-F.2d, 1.164 (3d Cir. 1977). However, common job evaluation plans 
such ks the one involved- in the recent court decision of AFSCME v. 



State of Washington arrive at a total point score by adding up 

the points for each rating factor of a job. The final result is 

thus an overall score which represents a corposite of the^scores 

for each rating factor. We would much prefer language emphasizing 

the comparison of jobs as a whole. We would also suggest omitting 

separate ^mparison of the factors of education and training 

which, under most standard job evaluation plans, are alreardy 

sub.^umed under the factor of skills. We propose substituting the 

following language: 

Sec. 3 (2) "discriminatory wage-setting 
practices" mean's the setting of wage rates 
paid for jobs held predominantly by female 
workers lower than those paid for jobs held 
predominantly by male workers where; the work 
performed by the female workers is of at least . 
. comparable value In the ovterall cocposijte of 
skill, effort, responsibility and working 
conditions. ^ * 

2. Subsection*- 5 6^ A: he Definitions section presently defines 
"equitable job-e valua tion^J&c+w^j^ • evaluation tech- 

nique which, to the maxirrroy e^ feasible, doesi not include 

components for determining tfie comparative value of a job that 
reflect the sex, race, or ethnicity of the enployee." We think 
this definition should specifically exdlude the use\ of^market 
wage rates as a component for determining job value. We believe 
that market wage rates incorporate discrimination . However, sorfte 
argue that the "market" is neutral. In order to avoib any dispute 

on this issue, we would prefer the following language: 

r 

Sec. 3(5) "equitable job-evaluatioD technique", 
means a job-evaluation technique which, to the 
maximum extent feasible, does not Include ^ 
components for determining the comparable value!\ 

\ 



ERIC 



334 ■ m^:.f 



331 



of a job that reflect the sex, race or 
ethnicity pf the employee or the market wage\ 
rate for sbch job. \ '\ 




The study and correction of sex-based inequities in the 



federal job c^^si f i6fl4tloh system will be of significant benefit 

to the government as an employer and as the primary enforcer of 

the country's civil rights laws. While serving as a model for 

eliminating sex-based wage discrimination throughout the society, 

the federal government will also, incidentally, reduce its own 

liability under employment discrimination and pay equity l*aws, 

such as the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. That'Act mandates 

"equal pay for work of equal value." Presuaably, wages are to ?be 

increased for a number of underpaid women's jobs, thus increasing 

the morale of its substantial female federal workforce. Most' 

important, the immoral and illegal exploitation of federally — 

employed women will cease. Thus far, however, we«? have seen 

little or no corrfpl iance * with the Act's mandate. 

We thank the Members and staff of the Subcommittee on Compen- 

satioh and Employee Benefits, for holding this hearing and for 

permitting us to ^bmit our testimony, 
* 

FEDERALLY EMPLOYED WOMEN 
' * LEGAL AND EDUCATION FUND . INC. 



TERRY HARf LEE 
\ President 

\ 



f0.'^'\ . 33, 



332 



SUBCOMMITTEE OU (!:OMPENSATIOr^ AND l-MPLOYEK BENEFITS - 

HEARING ON H. R. 5092, THE PAY EQUITY ACT OF 1904 
PROPONENT TESTIMONY ' April 3, j|l9a4 

by the WOMEN'S FOUITY ArTTO'J Lr;Ar,i;E (W!'M,) 

OF OHIO, Elizabeth Poyor, Attoi-noy ^t Lbw 
and Prf^sident of Ohio WEaL, off rocorci, 
Ib'ifl ninps Roafi, :Jovelty, ohiT 4'107,^ • 
(210) 33B-3374 ../.". 

Members of Congress and friends. WEAI, of Ohi g ^st r onn l y sup- 
ports the 'passBqn. of legisl^ition to brinq ^hout e i^ut-iblp p=,y 
for women in public employment, in the? forn of H,}i, 009?, Tho 
Pc^fc-^quity Act of .19Q4: V/e believe th=it >>Gn<?fits to the Vconor^y 
as a whole, a^ well as to women, will result froro payinq vofu^n 
■fair waqes in accordance with comparable worth hpd waqe equity 
contepts, ■ \ ' ' ' ■ 

On April 20 a hearinq on this issue in Clt^v^'^l und , rJ^itQd by 
Rep. /*ary Poyle, resultt?d in a considerable anjuat of tnsti-.ony, 
showing wage discrepancies. Separation of job| cateqorios into 
predominantly male And predominantly female jobs was prevalent. 



and f emale~dominaJ?ed jobs received lower pay. 



often by a con- 



siderable margirt. 

Both registered nurses and licensed practllcal nurses were 
found to be underpaid, if cognizance was giveli to their training, 
broad areas of duty, and heavy responsibility,- 

Ohio was pointed. out as being extremely job-seqreqated into 
predominant 1^/fover 75%) male or fen^lo' jobs in many areas. 

This situation has persisted in even more aggravated fprn 
ever sincci women foun<^ employment outside the hone. The first 



333 



typists"^ fnr ex^npio, w^^ro -nen* uritiV womon were found .to be, wil- 
ling to work for "pin-money." 

The free- enterprise system and free-market economy are time-" 
hallowed in our democracy, but they are not evolving rapidly 
enough to bridge the gap between women's responsibilities today, 
ind women's pay. • 




\This hiatus of. malfunction is based on a lag in willingness to 
face fae<s. The concepts regarding "women's jobs" and ••women's pay* 
afe based on a world long-gonC. When I was a child in Fremont, 
Ohio, a paperhanger and a department store clerk who lived on our 
street supported wives and families on their sole earnings. Of 
course those were the days of the five-cent loaf of bread, the ten- 
cent yard of gingham, and the food donations from th^e ^airiily firm. 
And of course in those days it was every girl ' s prime^ duty to track 
■down and marry "a good provider." * 

Nowadays very few men can provide a home for a non-working wife 
and children. SKVEN PERCENT is the most recent figure, and it is 
constantly shrinking.. The other 93% are now the norm. 

The winds of economic change have become' a hurricane v a tidal 
wave, in which women are being engulf e^i. One result is the poverty 

of children living in households headed by wornen--a nation^sl acandal. 
Another national disgrace is the vast^umber of elderly women living 
out .their last^years in poverty after a -Iflfetime of hard work, 
because their low earnings and job status placed capital accumulation 
and, adequate pensions out of their reach. 



Bjsi COP! ^^W^'^^'^ 



ERIC 



These- are facts to bo fdced.- The problnm must. b<* att-n Kfd on 

-all fronts. Women must be educated to roicivlh^r hiqru;st edrninq 

potential) child-support collections must be stringently enforced j 

1 . 

illegitimate births must be deterred) women must* be accuLtur'ated and 
urged to 6nter non-tiad itional fields. 

But if all these good things took place tomorrow morninq, wo * 
would still be left with an enormous period^ of hiatus. Thej effects 
could not be immediate. Women ''would still occupy job fields whicti 
receive significantly less pay than those dominated by men. hot 
the next few decades this problem, al"so, will continue to force 
women into a hardship status unless it Is corrected. ^ ^ 

And correcting this inequity will require drastic acti'on. It ' c 
will be resisted. Employers will viev the loss of their cheapest 
la^or pool, women, in the'same light as plantation owners viewed 
the freeing' of the slaves! ^ • 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, for one, cons iders - the , imposing of 
comparable worth regulations, as being undesirable. In an editorial 
on January 20, l984, it stated that a job evaluation system would 
be "inefficient" to set wages. Furthermore, it claimed, gompjidble 
worth would reduce women's incentives to seek access to non-tr^ditional 

\ 

jobs. 

We, too, would agree that this latter would be an undesirable * 

result, and we will continue to acculturate against it. We will 

welcome the JOURNAL'S cooperation in this endeavori we didn't know 
they cared! " 



33d 



335 



However even the JOUl^NAl. admits that public ^mployiruMit , siuoo 
it does npt have to produce a competitiv^t>roduct for the jnarket- 
place, could more teac^ily submit to comparable worth standards* 
We might consider another point: tax moneys should be spent for 
equitafble hiring. <, However-we must observe that the current admini- 
stration's Justice Department also suppo^rted by our taxes, is poised 
to object to |2?he comparable wotth concept as soon as they da^-c. 

' Public, employment is a la^rqe segment of the job market. Com- 
parable worth regulations in this area would raise women's wages 

.V- 

* *• 

in a coKs idenable segment of the job market, and hence would offer 
womep a whole area of better-paid employment opportunities. This,, 
in^turn, would afford wgmen some lateral employment mobility wnich 
they do not have at the presefi.t time, and in truth have never had. 

Let me. give a personal example. Many years ago, shortly after 
relocating in Cleveland, I worked in a technica 1 . publ ishing house, 
first as an editor, then as an assistant publisher. One day I was 
called into the front office and offered the job of my immediate 
superior, who had just been fired, I was offered a salary of 
^3,000,00 per year, when I had good reason to believe that my pre- 
decessor had been earning about. $30,000.00, One-tenth seemed some- 
what skimpy, even then, so I demurred, and asked for more money, 
^ I will never forget the response.: "Women's brains around this 
town are a dime a dozen, Tak'e it or leave it. If I advertise this 
job I will have a lineup of applicants halfway around the block,'* 

And the statement was true. The employer knew it and I knew 
it. He had the whip hand. And t'o this day such one-sided negotia- 



tions take place. It seems to be every employer * s. ^ream to KEEP. 

• ■ 

women as a cheap labor pool. Without lateral job mobility women 



ERLC. 



333 



336 



will novor l)o Ji ll* t"j It II t| ill) ft»r t»<ni U iMtniii pt. 

In the p-^st this injustice ta worruni Wis ontlorotl, wifrt tr\*,> 
thought On each womin's part th»\t the fcniLt must somotiow be not* 
ovm , Now the probLo,(n is too wide.Tpredd to be icjnort'd or deferred, 
It affects too Large a seqment of our population. Too many women 
must support. not on ly themselves but their children or their iqinq 
.f)arent3. The qradu ^ I ly -evolv inq (and much publicized) aJvanci^rrient 
of a relatively few women in non-trddition{il fields cannot correct 
the v^j^ bulk of the prok)le.'n in the i.nrm'd i ate ftitur»*. l t.toi.l»«:M 
affects the general economy, as it thrusts nany wonen into u n*.H.'d- 
lessly dependent stdtus/ and all vidble fneans must kje used to ilU*- 
V i a te i t . 

There willNt^ difficult comparisons to be weighed. bor exirnple, 
women's upper -boay strength, sinc^ it is on the average less than 
men* a, has often been used to jubtify w i je d i f t ererjt i 1 1s , ev*,'n though 



heavy liftin<j wus infrequent or cpuV:J have bi.'eu done .nt'ch m ic j I ly . 

As One of my consultants pointed out # it is comrnon for the t)Lu»>- 

collar workers to receive a miich higher w ige ttiin ttu» i>hiterollar 

workers in the same pl^nt, lriwn,.,^he rt^m irked, is i^.nrr nigtiVy 

valued than brains. ^ * 

Several of my consultants remarked that the . prof oss ions now 

seem to be more equally paid, except when it Comes to oromnt-ioos. 
■ A 

And one person observed that the initial sal arrangement , <ar rived* 
at by bargaining, followed the professional on through her entire 
job tenure. 1*bis , of course, results from women's reV-itively wojik ^. 
compeferltive position in bargaining for s&lary at the time of hiring. 




erIc 



3.4 u \ 



337 



Faced, on tho one h^nd, with a diro rveed for job earninqc, 
and on the othpr hind with t^nnloyers who ^re ^ulte ^w^re th-tt 
they c?in "qet aw^y with" oTft^rinq womed less money/ wom.en ap- 
'plicihts are forced to simply settle for what ^hey can qet, 
A long, long period of retraininq and re-.acculturat ion will be 
necessary before this stranglehold is loosened. Legislation 
soems to be the only answer to bridge the qap. • 

The Washington State. vs, AFSCME victory (thus far) in the * 
courts gives us \ ray of hope, and thos«> regulations/ since ' ^ 
they ar»^ now coart - Ac>pr')v>»d / night sorv«» is i noiol for =idoption. 

Our oppont^nts iri this m^tti?r/ who b<»n^?fit fron tho continu<?d 
existotire of*'i (_^u> l^bo;-^ pool, will im:n<.>'ii ^teiy cry Over- 
requlation! Inter for*^nce with a freo m^rKet ^cono^^y! ^ 

i^ut .let us r»s< ourselvoS/ why should ^'froo -niifket economy 
be sacrosanct wh'v, -^t io rhry^li^r bail-out w n 1 1 y approved? 
It bent the rules f^r -^or^? tnm our pres»>nt 'Je"i=inds for the inoo- 
sition of co^p^rinl'^ worf^ stuvJ^rds in ounlic ernoloyment . 

>iVM' of Ohio tK^r'^foro strongly en'lors«?s the proposed Pay 
riguity \ct of 1'>M1. >m? boliovo that p=iy eguity for women is *a 
^ clear necessity vhrn households headed by women are being dubbed 
"the new poor , " 

Respectfully suhnj§:ted. 



o 

ERIC 



STATE|5lENT OF DAVID BENDER. PH.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTDR. 

SPECIAL LIBRARIES' ASSOCIATjpN „.ii, 

Tho Sptic iar Librar led Association (SLA) makfs ihc following 8tatt'mi'nt 
in aupport of H.R. 4599, "Thi-'Foderal Employees' Pay Equity Act of 198V', 
introduced on January 23, 1984, ta*> promote pay equity and eliminate certain 
"wage-aett ing prac t ices" within Che Federal Government's civil service. 
The SLA is an international organization of more than 11,500 librarians, 
informat ion managers , and brokers. Approximately 2,500 SLA members are 
emp^loyed in 1 ibrar ies/ in format i on centers-of various federal governmortf 
agencies, in their regional offices, »nd in U.S. military installations 
throughout the world. 

the SLA would like to go on record as supporting the concept of cqtial 
pay for work of equal value. The Association's official position is outlined 
in its publication entitled Equal Pay for Equal Work: Women in Special 
Libraries. SLA also supports the efforts of those librarians wh<» have 
doc uaented and^re challenging the practice of discriminatory salaries 




t 



Ml 



338 . 

for librarians which aro not commcnsurato- wi*th pay^for comparable 
predominate I y-male professions that require similar levels oT ecJucalion, 
experience, responsibility, and working conditions. Numerous examples 
can be cited which illustrate that the Equal Pay Act of 1963 has not ^ 
closed the gap between raon's and womon's wagos. A case in goint exists 
in Virginia, where one county has established and maintains sex- s<'gregat ed 
• job classification system, and pays lower wSges to t rad i t i «)t>^ ly fi'ma^lo 
occupations, At the entry level, whero tho librarians arc rt?quirod to havt? 
a Master's degree and to exercise supervisory responsibility, they are 
paid approximately $900 less than employees i n ma I e^domi nat ed professions 
such as Planner I and Naturalist I, which require no more than an under- 
graduate degree and have no supervisory responsibilities, This practice 
has brought EEOC charges against tho county. Indeed, Virginia is not an j/ 
isolated incident. Since mid-l98l nurses and c i t yworkt'r s in San Jose,/ 
Calif., school secretaries in Anoka, Minn., and clerical workers in 
Allegherty County, Pa., have engaged in battles over pay-oquity issues, 
to name only a f<?w oxara()les, Bruti- Nelson, a leading Ti t I e V I I de f e nse 
lawyer declared in a speech in Washington, D.C., "tha;. public employers 
seem to be mor e »vul ne r ab I e to the equ i t y -a rgument than private employers^{^- 
He alsi) said that "the most horrendous fact siruations arise in the public 
sector." * ' y 

As a result of initiatives at the state level, several states have 
und^y taken job evaluation studios. One of the earliest was conducted by 
Washington state in 197 3-74 ^ and recently culminated in the landmark decisioi 
, in support of comparable worth. Irtitial studies there finind that women were 
mainly clustered in library, secretaria^l and teaching jobs and learned an 
average of $175 per month less than t ho^e--mos t I y men--who held comparable 
jobs as truck drivers, warehouse workers and electricians. 

Michigan, Minnea#^a and Nebraska have undertake,n studies similar to 
Washington, des ignt'dlT t o document the extent of wage* d i sc r im i na t i on against 
women. Other 3tates\such as Wisconsin, Iowa, Idahi) and ^Iew Jersey, hav<' 
also conducted job evaluation studies. 

However, pay equity problems are jiot limited just to state g»ive r iiment s 
Last, year, during h^»a rings before this committee, t.)ie J>5bci)fivni t tee on 

Compensation and Employee Benefits, witnesses presented testimony which 
dramatically demonstrated the disparity between salaries earned by men 
and women in comparable jobs in the federal government. While states 
are moving Slowly to redress t hese inequ i t i es in their work force, the 

.federal governmetit has yet to taka the initiative to deal with pay equity 
problems in its work force. Indeed, several actions taken by the U.S. 
Office of Personnel Management, if implemented, will further widen the 

^ap. For example, new. draft standards developed'^lor federal librarians, 
a, predominantly female occ^pation^ would have the effect of lowering 
average salarties for women by downgrading at the ent y level. While this 
action is occurring classification series y^^^e men predominate, slich 
a» accountant and economist, remain unchanged. Clearly then, 0PM is 
part of the problem, not part of the solution. 

If HrR. 4599 is enacted, SLA would urge that the federal government 
be directed to tSke the route be ing' fol lowed by the states and seek tlje 
advice of private-sector consulting firms which are expert in job 
evaluation techniques 6(n6 who have conducted similar studies in the 
. various states. Vfik 

^5 ■ 

In closing, to paraphrase "from an art ic It; which appeared in the New 
York Times of March 22, 1981, ....for many the promise of equal pay for 
equal work is an empty one. Unlesa men suddenly flock to secretarial 
•chools and kindergarten classesj there is no hope that anything will 
happen. Only a reassessment of how "women's work" as a whole is 
compensated is likely to change. the economic equation. 



339 



STATEMENT OF HON. MARY O..BOrLE. HOUSE MAJORITY WHIP,' 
OH.IO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES' 



Madam Chairperson and members of the Suboonmit tee on Conpensation and 
Diployee Benefits . TTiank you for allcwing me the opix)rtunity to present this 
j^itten testimony on the pay equity issue. I ocxnnend your efforts and the 
efforts of the Subcanni ttee ^toweurd investigating pay inequities in the country, 
as I believe this is one of the oldest and rnost persistent synptons of inequality 
in the United States, ^^i^ile rremy people believe th^ situation of erployed 
■i^^men has inprove^ narkedly, the facts indicate otherwise. 

d . 
As Ch2iirpexsoh of the Sub&anrattee on Pay Kquity of the llouse Select 

^ Ctmnittee on Eiiployment and Ciyil Service, in the Ohio House of flepresentatives^ 

I have conducted five hearings around the State 0f Ohio to gather public testimony * 

frcm the private and public sector on the status of pa^ equity in Ohio. m 

The -testimony we have received thus far indicates that there is inde^ 
a 'problem in Ohio. Robert Van Der Velde of the Northern Ohio Data and InfomBtion 
^ Service in the urban Center at Cleveland State University testified on the findings 
. of his study of the male-female income qapnlking 1980 census data. Van Der Velde 
found that wCmen in Ohio e^um4only 55C for each dolleu: earned by men; in Cuyaihoqa 
County women earned for every dollar earned by men. State government wonen 
workers feure better, earning 85C for every dollar a man e£u:7is, but private sector 
women employees earn only 52C for every male doll2ur. 

Race is another significant factor when looking at pay equity. Black women 
earn 48C to every doliar earned by white men in Ohio's private sector. Van Der Velde 
also found that although significant disparities exist between &ie inonme black 
and white men, black men earn more than white warien in Oie private and public sec- 
tors, with black women earning the least of all. 

The American Federation of State, Counti^and Municipal Rr^iloyees (AFSCMi:) . 
fvasL conducted a preliminary pay equity analysis of Ohio's state enployfH?s which 
shows that the state erployoes are Icirgely segregated by sex wiUhin job classes 
and that there is a clear pattern of Icwer vRges for the female-dominated job 
classes. Governor lUchard F. Celeste has established a oonrmission to investigate 
the possible inLxiuities in state erqployeo salaries; results Of tJne* stuly should 
be available late this year. However, in listejnin^ t^ the {nitjlirr testimony 
around the state, we rf^coqnize that this problem extends much fiu-thor than state 
government. Women from a variety of fiii^jloynent sectors have contacted us, and 
time and time again the story rejrains the same: a loyat, dejx?n<lable, respcctal^le 
(invloyee with itiany years of exix*ric»nce with the stnte or with a ccmxiny makes 
so little that she nee<Js fotxj stamps to feed her children. * ^ 

I applaud the leadership of Congresswonvin (Vikar for tackling this issue at 
Uie national level. Pay imxjuity is a natiotiaj problr^n, arxl alUxnigh tiie State 
of (^io is fortunate to jrvave tnoblie officials concerntxl aUnit this 'issue, nvu^y 
states are not so blesso^l. National leadership is sorely needed, anrl we>apj)r(?- 
ciate your^ Subcomiit tee's efforts toward tliat end. 

Thank you for allowing me the o[-portunity to rerx^rt on fHe protjresp of 
pay equity in Ohio. ^ ' ^ 



9^ 



, ' ^m^"^' 343 
ERJC . • , ■ ■ / 



340 



STATCMENT OF GOtnif wAnMALTtiR _^ - . 

My name is Goldio Waghalter. I .in a consultant 'to Council 
Member Eleanor Tins ley. It is a pleasure to be fie re. My 
purpose this morninq^ is to share with you some of the results of 
my study concerninvj "economic equality for women employees of the 
Houston City Government. First I will provide some background 
information. 

As you well know, much progressive locjislation on J^ehalf of 
wonen ' s . rights has passed in the last tvo degrades. Thp r.-iual ^ly 
Act, Title VII of <the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and Executivf^ Order 
112-46 are a few examples, fact that this le'jislat ion was 

:ie4fiessa^y is in itsf?lf revealing. For, if the history o: our 
»rultural devolopnent l^d to positive attitudes toward women, 
highly rating the status of women, perhaps the concerns would 
today be achieving equal rights foremen. In researching \he' 
early history of Confucian, Judaic, Judaic-Christian, and 
Islamic traditions, all were highly pa ternal isjt ic, all giving 
most rights to men, and all placing women in an inferior status . 

These attitudes did not chancje much through the centuries. Even 
in the liSth century, Benjamin Franklin wrote it was essential 
^.for women to be educated, but only so that men cc^uld give them 
proper direction. He believed that nature designed men *as 
superior and invested them with a directing power in more 
difficult and irnportant affairs in life. *Thomas Jerfferson felt 
that women were unfit In brains and character for serious study. 
Women were seen as emotional rather than logical. Men were ^ 
active and independent; women passive and dependent. Even Freud 
felt that a woman who was not passive, who wished to participate 
outside the home or pursue an intellectual profession, was 
neurotic. 

Unfortunately, womerf^ themselves believed in these stereotypes. 
Wpmen who accepted this view of tViemselves were socially 
rewarded'. It Is no wonder that few women even questioned the 
fi:t that men often recieved greater pay for the same job. 
Personallay, in 1965, when I was an entry level ^ementary 
teacher, I agreed with the rationalization that male teachers 
deserved higher salaries as they were the 'breadwinners.' I was 
unaware that of all women workers 40% were heads of families 
because they were single, divorced, sepaifated, or widowed, or 
whose husbands earned less than $10,000 per year. Despite these 
lingering views, many women have yearned for equality in the 
family and in the workplace. The explosion of the wom^en's 
movement in the 1960 's and 1970' s resulted in many quesioning 
the wage disparity between male ancj female workers. 

With all our progressive legislation, how a^e women doing in 
the labor market? You are all familat with these statistics. 
Nationwide, in 1955, women's median wage,, was 64% of men's wage. 
By 1970, women's median wage was only 59% of men's and dropped 
to 57% in 1979. 89% of the jobs paying $15,000 or more were held 
by white jnales nationwide in 1975. Womert who have completed 4 
years of college earn less on the average than men with an 8th 



ER?C 3li 



\ 

grade oducatiori. Clearlyv mure passaqe of legislation is not 
enough to unsure oqual riyhts. , " 

Two f-actors havo been established aoout women workers in the 
U.S. One is that females earn less on the avera<je than men. The 
second is that females liave long been concentrated in relatively 
few occupations; clerical and service positions at the hoc torn of 
the pay scale. 

I ;;ecane involved witn the" study on salary inequities of 

/friployoes of Hou'>t )n '^ity qoyerninerit because of a request i'roir, ' 

Council Me.Tibet'> Kluanor Tinsley . 0nT»~"\n" ^wo wo;nen elected to ti^e 

Houston City Council far the first t|i:-.e in tne* history of the 

City of Houston, Council Memoer Tinsley as<ed if I would 

andertaKe a research project on 3o:ie aspect of city qovernrnent. 

We c'nose to .investigate women in city rjovemment / partly because 

of a campaign promise by Council Menber Tinsley and a desire on 

her- part to ir.prove-. opportunities for women, and a personal 

interest on my part. We decided to limit the study to salary 

and advancement t-jpportuni ties for women, 

« V 

In 1980, the greatest concentration of fe:riale employees in city' 
■jovenment (51%) v-re in clerical positions. Some 93%* of the. 
city's clerical e:nploy^es were women. And even here, men were 
apt to earn nore than women on the average. Also, the clerical 
category had the lowest salary of all categories. As of January 
li^:-33, ninety per :'e:Vt of clerical e.-nployees were women', a drop 
of three per -jtMit, 

::. January lOH.J :-un earned an average of > U>n ui-w.M^kly an i 
wonen »?arned >h U oi-wt»oKly on t\\e averu :** ( -M- > of mal»? 
salaries.) In January 198 J male average oul^ries was $720 
bi-we'?kly while :enali:js oarr;ed $hO ] bi-wee'Kly (83"oof male 
salaries.) The/>e figures are exclusive of police an^ fire 
enployeos. J^e gap is widening. 

In January lO'ii) there were ^'-'y-V^ wo;nen wor<in7 for the city out 
of 10,660 enpl.-ye-^Y^ .{ex:lusLve of police and fire) or, i2.Z''(>. In 
■ a'luary' of 19b 3, 1,3^:^ wmen out of av.tota^ o_f 12,800 w(,'r" 
.}i:iployed, or 34.3", (-exclusive of police and fire employees.) 

It is important to point out that discrimination is often not 
intentional by city officials or department heads. Often" 
discrimination is subtle.' The above figures do' not me«in that 
discrinirvat ion is rf.^s'ptiiKS ible for the differences in. salaries. 
For example^ within, a CAt-rjory, C f ic ia l/Admin ist r itor , most of 
tile higher decis ion-ma tcing positions are held by wiiite inal<?s, 
Females and minorities are iiired into lower classifications. 
Salaries will often be very unequal. Often they perform very 
different jobs, with males getting the most lucrative positions, 
liowever, the City of Houston represents itself as an equal 
opportunity employer. Results of employment practices determine 
whether discr imina ion exists, iiot the interit, 

r designed a questionnaire in 1980 in cooperation with the 
Af f ir.r i t ivf> Actior; Di/ision to letercnin'> [^cir-yipt ions o: .city 
employees about employment practices. clmployees perceived 
discrimination, in pay differences for ernployees doing basically 
the same Job and discrimination in proir.otion practices. Women 
on the whole felt more discriminated against than men, \l.so, a 
higher percentage of women applied for promotions than men but 
mote men actuali*y received promotions. The question to address 
is whfet^er this pattern is discriminatory' in na^re or whether 
characteristics of the employees can explain this wage 
disparVty. 



35-003 0-84-22 



\ 



342 



Many reasons are offered as explanations of why men earn hi«3her 
salaries than women. Some say women are not motivated; others 
say women are not as well educated or have not worked as long. 
Council Member Tinsley and I felt an indepth investigation of 
why the salary differences persisted was necessary. I performed 
an anaisis of the salary differences as my masters thesis. 

A random sample of 1000 city employees was selected. Civil 
service re<iords were reviewed to determine age, years of 
employment with ^the city, education level, performance and type 
of position, A statistical procedure, regression analysis was 
.performed. This study showed that salary discrepancies were not 
due to age, years of employment with the city, education "level, 
performance type of position. After the controls, women 
still earned an average of $138 bi-w^e^cly less than men. 
MinorJJilas^ ^rned an^ averacje of ^ IQ7^bi-w6e?CiV lus^ m^TT^ite 
e mployees . 

A black male city employee oarnafl 5*4,160 per year less than a 
white male, on average or approximately 15% less; an Hispanic 
male earned $5,01& less; a white female earned $5,2^ .or 18% 
less than white males. Minority females were affected by a 
•double whammy. Black females earned $6,786 or 2.9% less^than 
w}}ite males. Hispanic f emales^earned on average 30% less, $699*^ 
less than white males. 

The pattern continues: 31.3% of white :nales earned over $30,000 
per year; 15?^» of minority males earned over $30,000. Only 7,8% 
of white fe'nales earned. over $30,,000 and a rjifcre 1.7% of minority 
females earned this mucii. 

About 35% of the men with college degrees earned over $30,000 
while only about 10$ of the college educate^ women earned this 
much. Men with a highschool or lower ed>jcaTion level earned, 
more on the average than wonen with a college degree. However, 
more men do have college degrees, '15% compared to only 27% of 
the women employees. 

One of the things we found in the city was an apparent 
departmental difference in opportunity for greater salaries. In 
some aepartnneats, officals and administrators earned much higher 
salaries thun officials and administrators in other depart.nents . 

In light of th(/se results. Council Meno^ Tinsley made several 
recommendations. The city must actively recruit and promote 
qualified women and minorities into higher paying positions. 

Also, the city pay structure needs to be reexamined. Training 
programs are necessary to to enable women and minorities to move 
into higher paying and nontrad it iona 1 jobs. Women will prooably 
r'?tain segregated jobs for a long ti'Tie. The idea of comparable 
worth deserved serious attention. 

The study i tso 1 f . appea r s^ to have an impact on the progress of 
women emplcpyees. Information concerning the city work force 
generates a lot of publicity. City officials want the city to 
reflect a positive image. With Council Member Tinsley 
continually focusing on tlus issue, many departments have taken 
a more serious attitude towarti affirmative action. The role of 
watchdog is an important one. * 

Much has been df:)ne, but even more is require^ for effective 
change. The city loses when we do not take advantage of the 
available talent^and resources of our employees and potential 
employees. 



343 



STATEMENT OF SUSAN R. MEISINGER- ' ■ 

DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR 
EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS 
U.S. ■ DEPARTMENT 0F% LABOR ^• 
BEFORE THE I 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICeW^D CIVIL SERVICE 
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMPENSATION AND ETHPLOYEE BENE;FITS 



April A, 1984 
Madam Chair and Members of th^ Subcommittee: 

Thank you for ^the opportunity to submit our statement 
to your. Subcommittee today on H.R. 5092, tho Pay Equity Act 
of 1984. As you know, I was recently named Deputy Under 
Secretary for Employment Standards, and I also am continuing 
to serve as' Acting Director of the Office of federal Contract 
Compliance Programs (OFCCP) . 

OFCCP is the office in the Department of Labor's Employ- 
ment Standards Administration (ESA) which has the responsi- 
bility for administration and enforcement of {he three equal 
employment opportunity mandates which make up the contract 
compliance prog ram— Exec'u ti ve Order 11246 , Section 503 of 
the Rehabilitation >ct of 1973 and the Vietnam Era Veterans 
Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, 38 USC 2012. Our mission 
is to ensure that Federal contractors do not discriminate 
in their hiring and employme'nt practices *?ith regard to racl, 
color, sex, religion, national origin, handicap or veterans 
status, and that tjfiey. take affirmative action in their hiring 
and employment pr,a,ctices. 

All contractors with government contracts or subcontracts 
~ exceeding $10,000 are obligated not to discriminate and to 
take affirmative action under Executive Order 11246. Section 
2012 of Title 38 of the U.S. Code applies to government con- 
tracts and subcontracts of $10,000 or more. Coverage under 
the Rehab i 1 i ta t Ion Act is based on a gove rnment con t r act 
or subcontract of $2,500 or more. ■ , 

To fulfill its role, OFCCP investigates complaints and conducts 
com^iance reviews of covered contractors in order to monitor 
their cybrytr^c tual obligations. Upon receipt of a complaint. 



/ 



1 



344 



OFCCP reviews the complaint for adequacy of information,' 
jurisdiction and timeliness. Individual complaints filed " ' 
under E%. 11246 which also' fall within the jurisdiction 
of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) are 
referred to the EEOC in accordance with a Memorandum of Under- ^ 
- standing entefed into between that agency and OFCCP on January 23,) 
19ai. However, OFCCP does investigate E.O. 11*246 complaints 
alleging class-type discciminatibn , and all Section 503 and 
.38 U.S.C. 2012 complaints. 

OFCCP «;ls6. schedules routine compliance reviews to assure 
adherence to statutory and- Executive grder requirements'. 
These, reviews generally consist of a desk audit, and an on- 
site and off-site review of a contractor's employment policies 
and practices to determine compli ance with the nondiscrimination 
and affirmative action requirements. During the- desk audi t , 
a contractor's af f i rma t ive action' program (AAP) submissions 
are reviewed. A major part of the/ AAP submission is compensation 
data £or employees. This helps begin the process of laentif/mg 
discriminatory compensation policies and practices. An analysis 
of compensation policies arTd practices is accordingly a required 
component of all compliance reviews we. undertake . 

The on-site review consists of a more compr enensive 
analysis of any problem areas identified during the desk 
audit/' and may include interviews of empldyees and a . review 
of personnel records, such as salary histories, performance 
standards and performance evaluations. 

We identify any apparent pay discrepancies to ttie con- 
t,tactor and analyze the contractor • s^explana t ion . At that 
*point, we conclude whether we believe there is. any discrimina- 
tory discrepancy. Where any significant pay discrepancies 
are <ound, they are either resolved by a conciliation agree- 
ment or a settlement agreement (if only onq individual- is 
involved) , ' . . ■ 



ERIC 



34 



Thu9, l-n carrying out its responsibilities, OFCCP rbu- 

V 

tinely investigates allegations of discrimination in wage 
payment pccictices that adversely affect wages of minorities 
and^.women. OFIJCP vigorously enforces the Executive Order 
. and the two other laws for which it is responsible as they 
apply to' sex discrimination. We have interpreted the substan- 
tive nondiscrimination provisions of the Executive Order 
to be the same ^s, those under Title VII of the 1964 Civil 
Rights Act. 

Section A ot H.R. ^92 would require the Secceta'ry bf 
Labo*r, acting througn OFCCP, to submi t a r epor t to Congress 
and the President every- 6 months. >n^e reports would des- 
cribe actions taken during t*»^preced ing^Y^i^hs to enforce- 
prohibitions against sex discr imination by^ federal contrac- 
tors. The bin states that each report "shall include at 
least the following information: 

(1) The ngmber of complaints alleging discrimination 
in compensation filed with the Office. 

(2) The number of compliance reviews concVucted by 

'the Office whifch included an examination of compen- 
sation practices. y 

(3) The number of e^orqement actions brought before 
an administrate law judge in which discrimina- 
tion in compensation is alleged. 

(4) The number of enforcement actions referred to 
the Department Of Justice with a recommendation 
to file civil action in whirch discrimination 

in compensation is alleged." 



/ 

/ 



346 

" ft . 

While we would have no difficulty in reporting this infoc 
mation to Congress, we believe that requiring reports of this 
nature is •unnece$sary as OFCCP could supply this information 
*v^^thout a statutory requirement. * 

At this time, for example, we can provide . the following 
data for FY .1983:' . . ^ 

' (1)' ■ 97 wage discrimination complaints were filed. 

'Of these, 29 were sex-based wage discrimination " 
^ ■ complaints. . f 

(2) , 4309 compliance r^iiWs were completed. (This 

compares to 2632 Wi, FY 1930 — approximately a 60%. 
increase since 1980 These^ compl i anc^^ev iews 
include Rehabilitation Act investigations -under 
Section 503 and investigations under 38 U.^S.C 
2012. Of the 4309 compliance reviews conducted 
in FY 1983-, OFCCP identified 304 deficiencies 
or violations in the 'wage-salary area , 

(3) There were no enforcement actions brought before 
administrative law judges in which discrimination 

'in compensation wis alleged. / • 

(4) There was one enforcement action filed in Federal 
District Court by the Department of Justice, 
U.S. V ■ Whitney National Bank . 

^ Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this bill. 
I hope this information is usejEul to the. Subcommittee. 



347 




UNITED STATES DISTRICTT^ COURT 
FOR THE MSTRlfcT OF COLUMBIA 



MARGARET MARY GRUMBINE, 

.Plaintiff, 

V. . 

UNITED STATES, et al.. 

Defendants. 



OPINION 



Civil Action No". 82-1938 

FJtTED 

APR 3- 1984 

JAME3 F. DAVEY. Oerk 



" This case involves a. significant ^ issue of first impres- 
sion: wh^t i^. the meaning of the term "establishment" under the 

Equal Pay Act for purposes employment in the federal go^yern- 

- / ■■ ' ■ ■ 

ment? / . . 

Plaintiff Margaret Mary Grumbine was a Regional Counsel of 

tH> Customs Service assigned to Baltimore, Maryland. At all 

times pertinent to this lawi^it, the Customs Service was divil 

,1/ 




and so was the Chief Counsel's Office of that 



into nine region 
2/ 

Service—' Although each of the other eight individuals e-erving 
as Regional Counsel in the Customs Service, all of them male, had 
a 6S-15 rating, ^nd although plaintiff's immediat^ predecessor. 



The Regional Offices were located in Boston, New York, 
Baltimore, Miami, New Orleans, Houston, Lo^Angeles, San 
Francisco, and Chicago. " 

V The Office of. Chief Counsel is one section in the Legal. 
pivision of the U.S. Department of the Treasury* 



\ 



ERIC 



348 



also a male^/had thit same GS-15 gating, plaintiff her selvP wa^ 

claBsified and paid only as a 05-14.. The government defends this 

3/ " ' 

^ action basically:^/ .c>Qi«J^|ground thatf'each Regional. Counsel 's 

Office is a separate "establishment" for pui^oses * o/ ^e Equal 

Pay Act, and that, accordingly , o it was not* required Vo pay plain- 

tiff at the same rate as the ihdivitauals servir^^ Regional 

Counsel in other "establishments," that is, elsewhere in the 

. .7 ■ • 

United States. Plaintiff and the Women ' s ^Le^gal De»fense Fund; j 
w^ich was permitted to part;icipat*e as <imicus curiae , argue oh 
various *bases that, at least^*in t*he context of. the federal Civil 
Service, the term "est^blishmeijit" )|ias n far broader meaning. 

/ ■■ ■ / 

■ ' .. .-I " /• 

•I*he*Equal Pay Act, ?9 U.S.C<. § 206(d), enacted as an amen^- 

♦ . - ■ o' ■ ^ ■ . ' 

ment to^the Fails Labor Standard! A^ct, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq , 
,was "intended as a broad cliArter of women *ff rights in the eco- 
nom^c field." S^ultz y. Wheaton Glass Company ^ 421 F.2d 259 (3rd 
Cir. ,1970). *To that ^end, it was designed to eliminate all „wage 
discriminations ba^ed.on sex which the Congress had found in 1963 
to continue to e)53,S;tr' on 'a substantial scale.-i' The issues 



/ 



3/ But see Part IV infra. 



4j Seer e.g. , 109 Cong. Rec, 9199 (Rep. Green); 109 Cong. Rec. 
, ^9^12 (Rep. Ryan)? 108 Cong, ^c. 149S7 (Rep. PubinaXi); 109 Cong. 
• Rec. 9^12 (Rep. Donahue)? and see the statement of President 
^ KennjH^ly on the occasion of the signing of the Equal Pay Act, 4une 

10, .f983, XXI Cong. Q. No. 24, p. 978 (June 14, 1983). 
' ■ ^ - . . 



ERIC 



849 



in this case must be considered with these basic purposes in 
roind^i-/ 

The government does not deny that Margaret Mary Grumbine was 
classified in A lower grade and was paid less than her male coun- 
terparts in the other Customs. Service regional offices. In 
defense of that disparity, Vhe government relies on section 
206(d)(1) of the Act which provides in pertinent part that 

No employer . . shall discriminate, 
wj.thin any establishment . . . between ^ 
^ emp-loy^es on the basis x>f se?c by paying wages 

to employees in such establishment at a rate 
less t-han the rate at which he pays wages to . 
empltDyees of the opposite sex in such estab- 
lisbment for equal work (emphasis added). 

Xn the government's view, the "establishment" to which the 

Court must look to determine whether plaintiff Was underpaid is 

the Office of Regional Counsel in l^ltirfiore not the Civil 

Service, the Depajlrtment of th^Treasury ^ 6r tde treasury's" 

Office of Chief Cjo.unse^ (with its nine subordinate Ijegio'nal Coun- 

sels).— ^ If thatf interpretation of the law is correct. 



5/ As Justic* Frahkftfrter observed in United States v. ^ 

"Dotterwich, 320 U.S.. 277, 280 (1943), 

— ' . / ■ \ 

[r]egard to [the purposes of cv law] . should 
infuse construction of the legislation if it 
i^is to be treated as a working instrument of 
government and not merely as a' collection of 
English worc3s. 

6/ The Women's Legal Defense Fund advocates a construction 
which' considers the Civil service or the Treasury as an "estab- 
lishment" for Equal Pay Act purposes. 

7/ Plaintiff appears to suggest that the Office of Chief 
"Counsel is th^ appropriate "establishment*" 



350 



plaintiff's classification and pay could not have violated the 
Equal Pay Act sintfe there. was no one in the Baltimore "establish- 
ment" who had a position like plaintif f ' $ she was the one and 
only, the Regional Counsel in that cit,y,^/ 

In defense of its interpretation, the government points out, 
correctly, that in a number of cases under the Fair Labor Stan- 
darSs Act the courts havjt^ held that an. "establishment" is a "dis- 
tinct physical place of business,"—' and that employees working 
in separate locations or offices should not be compared for Equal 
Pay Act purposes ^ 

These lines of cases certainly ^o ejcist, and they hold what 
the government claims for them. However , ' in „a number of other 
instances, and particularly in recent years, courts have not 
taken a strictly geograph ic^il view of the telrm "establishment" 
but have considered a multi-location employer to be a singly, 
establishment . 



8/ Dn that basis, she would not have been paid "at a rate less 
.^han the rate at which [the government paid] wages to emplofyees 
of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work," in the 
words of the statute. There was no one in the Baltimore office, 
either of the same sex or of the opposite sex doing work equal to 
that done by the Regional Counsel. Thus, if plaintiff had been 
paid one-half or yie-quarter as much as her counterparts Assigned 
by the Cttstoms Service's Chief Counsel to other cities, tt^ere 
• still v«!)ul_d have been no Equal Pay Act violation. 

o 

9/ ^^ee, e.g. , Mitchell V. Bekins Van an^ Storage Company > 352 
U.S. 1027 (1957); PhilTTps Company v. Walling , 324 U.S. 490 

Nj945); Brennan v. Yellowstone Park Lines, Inc. , 478 F.2d 285'' 

- J^Oth Cir . 1973.) . ^ 

10/ See, e.g. , Gerlach V. Michigan Bell Telep^hone Co. , 448 , 
F, Supii. 1168 (E.D. Mich. 1976) .- Alexander v. Unive rsity of / 

' l^M). ' 



Michigan-Flint , 509 F. Suppl' 627 (E.D. Mich. 



/ 



\ / 




/ / 



^51 . 

^' ■ ... 0 



The\ seminal decision in that regaXd is that of Judge Rives, 
writhing for the Fifth Circuit* in Brennan v. Goose Creek Consoli- 
dated Independent S<>hopl District , 519 F.2d 53 (5th Cir. 1975)* 
That case involved alleged differentials in pj^y between men and 
women working as janitors, for a school district composed of thir- 

\ 

teen geographically separate^ elementary schools^ ^ere, a"s 
here, the argument Was made that each separate geographic entity, 
i.e. , each school , was a separate "establ ishment " for purposes of 
the Act . Relying on such facts as, that the central administ ra- 
tion of the school district did the hiring, determined the wagesV^ 
and assigned the employees, and further that the duties of the 
various janitors did not differ from school to School, the court 
held that all the janitors were employed by a single "establish- 
ment" for purposes of the statute. To the same effect, see 
Marshal 1 v. Dallas Independent School DistridT , 605 F.2d 191 (5th 
Cir. 1979); Alexander v. University of Michigan-Flint , 509 
F. Supp. 627 (E.p. Mich. 1^0); EEOfl^ . Maricopa County Community 
'College District , 29 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 383 (D. Ariz. 
1982J^ 

The question before the Court, thfen, is how these various 
decisions may be reconciled withveffcrfi other and, more important, 
how they- may be squared wiy^-'fne congressional purpose. It appears 
to the Court that, at a minimum, a distinction should be drawn 
'f^r Equal Pay Act purposes between private and public employment. 

The te rm "establishment" as a geographical concept had its 
root in the congressional effort to exempt certain local busin^fes 



.352 



^^fetabliehmenta from the minimum wage and maximum' hours provisions 
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.— ^ Since coverage depended upon 
the volume of sales in any particular State, -i^^ it made sense to 
give to the term "establishment"' a geographic meaning, ^and the 
older cases did just that. But this reasoning has little rele- • 
vance to the^ EquaT Pay Act provisions , of the Fair L?bor Standards 
Act, and even less so in the area of governmental employment, 
where typically central supervision exists and pay standards 
apply for an entire system irrespective of where- the employee " 
happens tfo be located. It would hardly make sense to permit an 
employer to rely on a geographic "establishment" concept in 
defense. of an unequal pay practices when that employer has itself, 
adopted a uniform, non-geographic pay policy and system. 

It was on this basis that the courts in the more' recent 
decisiorfs referred to supra have departed ■ f rom geography in 
applying the Equal Pay Act and have considered a public employer 
with a number of locations to be a single establishment. 



llj See-, e.g. , 29 U.S.C. §§ 207(h), 213(a)(2), 213(a)(3)t - 

12/ There are no'si^milar exceptions with respect to federal 
' CTvil Service employees no federal "establishments**' are exempt 
from the minimum wage and iffeximum hour provisions of the Act. 



4 



j5j 



'ERIC- ^- ^ ■ : i^*^^^ 



353 



.Even the Department of Labor, upon whose regulations^-?-/ the 

' * 14/ 
government strongly relics,—' has taken t,^is view. It has not 

followed a "distinct physical place of business" rule in enforc- 
ing the Equal Pay Act against public employers. In fact, i-n such 
cases as Brennan v. Goose Creek , feupra , and- Marshall v. Dallas 
School District , supra , it was that Department which brought the 
suits against the multi-location employers, claiming that they 
had violated the Equal Pay Act by paying female employees in one 
location less than males in another... „ 



13/ > See 29 C.F.R.,§ 800.108. * . 

14 / The Court rejects that reliance for several reasons. In the 
first place, the Civil Service Commission, not the Department of 
Labor, had administrative authority over federal employees under 
the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. § 204(f)) and the Labor 
Department regulations therefore lack binding authority.^ More- 
over, the*e regulations were issued before the Fair Labor Stan- 
dards Act'was .amended to include federal employees. See 30 Fed. 
Reg. 11504, as amended by 31 Fed. Reg. 2657 and 32 Fed. Reg. 
2378. Further, these regulations w€re never regarded even by the 
Department as anything more than interim regulations ^pending 
jJltimate resolution of the 'issues treated therein by the coufts 
(see 29 C.F.R. J 800.2) and. on that basis they do not reflect 
more recent law discussed supra . Finally, as noted above, the 
Department itself has filed fequal Pay Act suits without^ regard to 
geographic limitations. . ' 

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to which j - 
enforcement authority for tKe Equ^ Pay Act was transferred from 
the Department of Labor (Reorganization* Plan ^?o. 1 of 1978, 43 
Fed. Reg. 19807 and 44 Fed. Reg. 37193) has promulgated proposed 
regulations which are quite different *from the regulations of the 
Department (5f Labor; in fact, *they support plaintiff's interpre- 
tation of the Equal Pay Act. See 46 Fed. Reg. 43848. T)ius, 
■whatever force remained with the Labor Department regulations has 
long been dissipated. t» 
4: . , : ■ 




- ER?c ■ v^' — - ■ . 357 



•4 -J 



354 



It is clear from these decisiog that, at least for purposes 
of public employ]ment,i^^ the geographic reach of the term "estab- 
lishment* is not automatically determined ^by geography, as the 
government would have it, but depends upon the degree to which 
^the^particular governmental entity has centralized its personnel" 

administration. / 

' ft • « " / 

It remains to be determined how these principles are /to be 

applied to en^loyment in the federal Civil Se rvrlce. 



The principle of equal pay regardless of sex was adopted for 
federal employment jinore than sixty years ago, with the Classifi- 
cation Act of 192 3. That statyte provided that 

[i]n determining the rate of compensation 
which an employee shall receive, the princi- 
ple of equal compensation for equal work 
irrespective of sex shall be followed. 16/ 



15/ It may also be that, for the reasons discussed above, the 
"establishment" conceprt should not be given a narrow geographic 
focus where a private employer operates a highly centrai'lized 
employment system. However, it is not necessary to decide that 
is^ue in this case, and the Court does not do so. 

16/ Classification Act of 1923, ch. 265, 42 Stat. 1488 (^923^ 
T"4^ (repealed. 1949). Although the Act initially applied only to 
employees stationed in tfie District of Columbia, this was subse- 
quently extended to field offices. See Act "'6^ December 6, 19^24, 
ch. 5, 43 Stat. 704j S^ct of March 5, 1928, ch. 126, § 2, 45 Stat. 
162, 163. 



JC 



35Vj 



i r 1 

-.1, a 



355. . 

This principle was reaffirmed and broadened in the Classifi- 
cation Act of 1949 which remains in effect today.— ^ that 
Act, the equal pay principle ie not limited to employees working 
in one place: government-wide standards are issued by the Office 
of Personnel Management (see 5 U.S.C. } 5105)—/ emd position 
classification decisions must comport with the equal pay princi- 
ple. Kaneke v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare , 535 
F.2d 1291 (D.C. Cir. 1976). ' 

There is nothing in the Classification. Act to suggest that 
Congress intended compliance with the equal pay principle to be 
limited by geographic location. The statute contains ho such 
restriction, and decided cases have superimposed none . To 

the contrary, the entire point and purpose of the various civil 
service laws is to provide "uniformity of treatment for aj 



employees, regardless of location 



VJJ Classification Act of 1949, 782, J 101(1), 63 ^tat. ^54; 

see also, P.L. No. 89-554, 80 Stat. 378, codified at 5 U.S.C. 
55 5101-5115 (1976), amended in 19^78 P.L. No. 95-454, 92 Stat. 
1111, codified at 5 U.S.C. §§ 5102-5115. 

18/ The application of the standards to the classification of 
Individual positions in accordance with these principles is the 
responsibility 6f the head of each executive agency. 5*U.S.C. 
}§ 5102, 5107. 

19/ The national scope of the equal pay principle with respect 
to the Civil Service-^ is underlined by the fact that, wheji 
Congress wished to depart from that principle, it explicitly said 
BO. Thus, 5 U.S.C.*}} 5341 et seq . recognizes that, with respeovt 
to certain classes of blue collar workers, the wage rates may 
differ depending 'upon the locality. As regards the Foreign Ser- 
vice, which also has a pay scheme unlike the regular Civil Ser- 
vice, see Osoky v. Wick' ,. 704 F.2d 1264 (D.C' Cir. 1983). 

I 



356 ... . 

In implementation of that purpose,^ Cwgress has devised a 
number of means for ensuring that the principle of equal pay for 
equal work applies to the Civil Service in its entirety, as 
distingyished from fragments, whether geographic or otherwise. 
Thus, Congress has . vested oversight responsibility for all clas- 
sification decisions in the Office of Personnel Management 
(oPM) Moreover, 0PM hears all appeals of classification 

decisions j^i'^ it conducts independent reviews of the classifi^|^ 
- tion decisions of each agency;^^^ and it has power to revoke the 
classification authority of an agency when it finds that the 
agency is not placing positions in grades in conformity with the 
published standards.—'. ^. \ 

There is no basis for supposing that, when Congress adopted 
the Equal Pay Act, 4*^ intended to restrict the scope of the pre- 
existing federal Classification and pay system or, to impose upon 
the federal government for 'Equal Pay Act purposes a different. 



20/ Formerly the Civil Service Commission. 

21/ 5 C.F.R. 51^.601-511. 615. 

22/ 5 U.S.C..5 EaiO(a) . 

23/ 5 U.S.C. 55 5111, 5112. 




357 

far narrower scheme.!!/ Certainly, no such intention can be 
^ imputed to the Congress merely becaiuw of its use of the term 

"establishment" which, as we have seen, should not, under the 
case law, be given a purely geographic mear^in^ when applied to 
other governmental employment schemes which a>Kcehtrally admin- 
^ , ■ ' istered. . - ' 

The tl^ual Pay Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights A^t. of 
1964, 42 U.S>C.A. § 2000e-16, and the Classification Act are ^n 
pari materia . These statutes are most appropriately construed 
together, and the Equal Pay ^Act should not be construed so as to 



Congress might have expected the term "establisff^ 
ment to be narrowly construed When the Equal Pay Act was 
initially, applied to private employers, that understanding does 
not carry over to the prCper construction of that term in the 
subsequently-included sphere of federal employment, for two rea- 
sons. Fxrst as indicated above, the maximum wage minimum hour 
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act have no relevance to 
governmental employement. Second, it would make no sense to 
!orrfn^°^ T""?"" '"^'"t the principle of equal pay for equal 
under ?lf?» VTT° "^ = ^"9 ""^er the Classification Act and 

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, but to have a wholly 
^rtlV^T/ narrower rule govern when sex discrimination issues 
arose under the Equal, Pay Act. In the absence of indicia of 
congressional inten^regai^ding this problem when federal qovern- 

Act inTQ^r^^"'". Vi:^"^ """""^^ ""''^ ^^i"- L-b"-^ Standards 

.^L . i ' \ """st^ft assumed that the Congress intended and 
expected consistency among the several statutory schemes. 
Expressions of congressional expectation of the relationship 
Mol^!^" treatment of federal employees and the interpreta- 

ti th/ri i° "other sections of the economy." were confined 
to the isdue of a possible conflict between the overtime provi- 
sions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the earlier premium pay 
provisions applicable to federal employees. H. R. RepfNo: 93- 
913. 93rd Copg., 2d Ses8. 28 (1974). 



O 35-003 0-84-23 

ERIC 



36- 




358 



25/ 

undermine or contradict the j-elated statutory "schemes In 

•hort, it would be entirely unreasonable to superimpose- only flpon 
the Equal Pay Act a geographic fragmehtation, scheme. 

■i-These conclusions are buttressed by .general canons o'f statu- 
tory constructions. As a remedial statute, the Equal Pay Act 
mupt. of course, be liberally construed.!!/ The Supreme Court ' s 
admonition in Phillips Co. v. Walling , 324 U.S. 490 (1945) is 



apt: 



* ■ ■ o 

The Fair Labor Standards Act was designed "to 
extend the frontiers of social pcogress' by 
•insuring to all*our able-bodied workxng men 
and women a fair day's pay for a fair day's 
worX^ 'Viessage of the President to Congress, 
May 24, 1934. Any exemption ffom such human- 
itarian and remedial legislation must there- 
fore 'be narrowly construed, giving due regard 
to th^e plain meaning of statutory language 



25/ See 
wTcV, ^upra 



Shultz V . Wheaton Glass Co. , supra ; OsosXy v . 

\ ■ The government asserts that the plaintiff's claims are 
1 , ^-1 'i£i^^4.i^T^ TLr^¥ AnH the action th€ 

\ 



encompassed under the Classification Act. and the action there- 
foVe could only have been brought under that Act. B..t a vioia- 



But a viola- 
tion of"that"8tatute does not negate ^n £qua]^«y-;fct claim, 
especially where, as in this instance, and in Title VII of the 
'\ Civil Rights Act of 1964, the two laws cover similar subject 
Vmatter. See Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Company , BU£^a. The govern- 
Wnfs r-J * contrary. on United States v. Te^, 424 
\Ts 392 \l976), is misplaced, 'for the Supreme Court 'there dealt 
bnly with the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims and the reach 
Of the Classification Act and the Baclc Pay Act . 

There is no more reason to d^hy plaintiff her Equal P>y Act 
claim on the basis that her classification may alsq violate the 
C-J^assification Act 'than it would ^.e to regard in-P^oper classifi- 
cation as a jurisdictional defense %D a Title VII suit. Yet in , 
literally hundredsfof c>se8 brought Ip this Courl every year 

■ VII are alleged. to have occurred and are in 
essed on account of improper ^lassificatiohs. <> 



.violations of Titl 
man^ instances ^r^d 

26/ Peyton v. ROwe 




.S. 54 (1968), 



ERIC 



36 



V .359 

: ' y ' . . 

' * * and the intent of Congress. To extend an 

exemption"to 6ther than those plainly and' / 
unmistakably within .its terms and spirit is 
• to abuse th^ interpretative process and to 
frustrate the announced will of the 

people . 27/ ' . " A . 

It should be n6ted in th'^is connection that many professional 
and managerial einployees — like this plaintiff — have no coun- 
terparts in the" particular office .or plant where they may be 
located. To hold, therefore, that the term "establishment" has a 
n^irrow geographic meaning would ^eave such female employees jf 

holly Unprotected by the Equal Pay Act from unwarranted pay 
di^s^/ijni nation since the government's managers could always 
.assert --^wxth justification,, i^ a geographic test applied — 
that there is no one to whom' thp female employee may be com- 
pared. See note 8 supra . The.Court would not be justified in 
adopting a construction which effectively vitiated the Act for an 
entire class of employees. ^ 

Fdr these reasons, the CoUrt rejects the goyernmeiit ' s argu- 
ment "based on geographic Ipcatiori, . apd it holds* that, at least . 
for Pay Act purposes,li./ the "establishment" under that Act is 
. th^ Civil Service in its e'h-t|rety: It followd that, when a com- ' 
parison is made between ttie pay of male employees and that of 



27/ 324 U.S. at 49a. While the Walling decision directly corf- 
cerned thfe wage dnd hour provisions of the Fair Labor Standards 
Act, the court in Goos^Creek , supra , regarded the quoted lan- 
guage ob directly . r.ele«|t to the sex discrimination provisions 
of the Act. 




28/ Different cdnsidera^cions may conceivably be pertinent with 
respect to ot\ier laws. A 



360 



female employees, it must be m^d^ on the basis -of the Civil Ser- 
vice «s a whole, and a woman may not be paid less th^. a man 
merely because she works in a different location. 

This does not mean, of course, that the government may not 

/'distinguish between and among its 'employees . on the basip of the 

du4;ies 'and respons.ibilities vested in them* Nor does the Court 

' ■ . . . > 

hold that ajuch distinctions are impermissible if geography is a 

factor.^^' However, if. tile duties and responsibilities of the 

position are substantially equal,—/ the buiJUen is appropriately 

placed on the government, in view of th^ existence of a single 

hatign-^ide Civil Service system, to explain why it shoulcf be 

permitted to pay , a low^ wage or salary to a -temale employee in a 

particular geographic location, notwithstanding the Equal Pay 

31/ 

Act, merely because sh^is employed at that location. What * 

the government may not do' — as it ajgues it hasy^e authority to 
do — is to refuse to take even the; first step undier the Equal 
Pay Act, that is, to compare the ^duties and responsibilities of 
similarly-situated employees of different gende^ to determine 

/. ■ ■ ■ ; ■ . / 



29/ For example, the nmnager of a particular of ^ice of a govern- 
ment department or agency in New York City or Los Angeles who 
supervises hundreds of employees ^nay be classified differently - 
and may accordingly be paid more than a manager of a branch in a 

*'much smaller city with far fewer individuals under his superV^i- 

. sion. ^ 

V ' * 

30^ the Codtt of Appeals for the Third Circuit said in Shultz v. 

WHjeatori. Glass Company , supra , 421 F*2d at^265, that "Congress, in 
prescribing 'equal' work did not require that the jobs be identi- 
cal, but only that they must be substantially equal.." 

31/ ^e 'doming Glass v. Brennan , 417 U.S. 188, 196 (1^74). 



whether they warrant equal pay# merely because the employees 
happen to be assigned tp different locations... 



■ III 

In order to determine what compa^'isons between and among 
employees should be made for Equal Pay Act purposes, using the 
;Btandard of function rather than that of mere geography, the 
Court now turns to 'the specifid facts of this case. With regrad 
to function, it is appropriate tb inquire into three principal * > 
factors I the decree of , centralize^ control in the Office of 
General Counsel of the Customs Service, the work *perfoi^med in the 
Regional Offices^ and the. position description under which t>>e 
plaintiff operated. \ 

First. The various Regional Offices were 'subject to regula- 
tion and coTjtrol from the Chief Counsel who treated them in every 
respect as being entirely under his jurisdiction. Thus,' the 
Regional Couj^isel Offices are described in off icial docume^s *a& 
being "a^p^rt of the Office of the Chief Counsel" and every 
Regional : Counsel is placed "under the general administrative . 
direction of the Chief Counsel"^/ (presumably as distinguished 
from that of the particular Regional iCommissioner of the Customs 
Service). The Regional Offices do not automatically handle all 
cases that come in to themj assignments may be, and occasionally 

1 



32/ Position description for General Attorney (Customs)^GS-15» 



' . . 362 

■ . • • 6 

I ^ ■ 

are, mad^ by the Chief Counsel's Office in Wasliington. That 
Of f ice also controls the settlement of cases. 

The Chief Counsel likewi&e controls the pay and budget pro- 
cess for all the regions, and he moni^rs the activities, of the 
RegiQri^l Cpunsel Offices through various means, including regular 
monthly reports. In fact, th^ Chief Counsel recently reorganized 

his Office, and t)jat r eorganf zat ion eliminated the Regional 

33/ 

Office in which plaintiff was employed. — ' ' 

Second. All tfae Regional Offices of the Customs. Service 
legal department perform the same basic functions regardless of 
their size or location.' N<pff only did the'Treasury not reduce fthe 
duties and responsibilities of the Baltimore Office or those of 



33/ To be sure, some functions are performed by a Regional Coun- 
"iel independently of the Chief Counsel's Office. It may also be 
true that, as the government claims, although the Chief Counsel 
sees many of the documents prepared in the offices of the 
Regional Coi^nsel, "rarely does he review any of those documents 
before their issuance or submission- to court," and yie exercises 
his supervisory role "chiefly" through review of monthly statis- 
tical deports, quarterly reports of significant activities and an 
annual survey visit to .e*ch Regional Counsel office. It is. also 
true that some Regional Offices handle more tort claims while the 
workload of others is characterized by litigation and administra- 
tive hearings, a<nd that the staff varies from three attorneys and 
two support persons in one office to eight attorneys and f^r 
support persons in another. Defendants' Memorandum in Support of 
Motion for Summary Judgment at 4. But none of" this establishes a 
Regional Office as an independent entity for Equal Pay Act or any 
Othet purposes. It merely demonstrates that employees at the 
GStIS level have some decision-making latitude in the Customs. 
Service just as they do in any agency of the federal government 
and that other, normal variations eilist with respect to such 
matters , as the precise distribution of the workload.. See note 30 



363 



the individual, occupying but during plaintiff, incumbency 

that Office handled nore cases than at least on other Regional 
Office (occupied by a male GS-15) . Furthermore, . while plaintiff/ 
was Regional Counsel in Baltimore, theflcaseload doubled compared 
to what it was when her mal.e GS-15 predecessor was in charge 

Third. Plaintiff was operating under a standard position 
description which is the same that was used for all other 
Regional '^Counsel positions .ii^ rhat document classified the 
position neld by, plaintiff as a GS-15 .11/ "^t^ 9lassi f ication was 



34/ In fact, tft^ Chief Counsel of the Customs Service advised 
'^ll^^^^^^^^^'^^^risels, including this plaintiff, on August 28, 
1980, that ■ ■ . . ■ ' 

t> 

I strongly believe that all Regional Coun- 
sels . . . should be judged ort the s^me l^asis 
with respect to their performance. 

Exhibit 2 attached -to Grumbine affidavit of April 15, 19^.^ ,. 

^/ The q^lity of plaintiff 'b work, was likewise beyond*- *^ 

^ memorandum, from the Chief Counsel dated October 9, 
1981 states* that when plaintiff 

. . . assL/med direction of the Baltimore 
office, its" workload and productivity were 
extremely low; its reputation for availabil* ' 
• ity, 'initiative* and responsiveness was 

P^oor .... I am pleased to report that ^ 
major strides have been, made in improving the> 
quality of legal services to .the region .... 

36/ That position description was used, inter alia , in classify- 
ing the position of plaintiffs QS-15 male pred^^sQr, as well 
.as that of Paul Wilson who was cl^assified as a GS-15 without the 
one year in grade which is' claimed by government to disqualify 
plaintiff from a GS-15. See Part IV infra. ' 

-ril In the? Civil Service, salary is- determined by the' classifi- 
cation. Ososky V. Wick , supra . 



■ ■ o 
ERIC 



■ ■ ^- - ■ t . 

\ I 364 . 

not changed after p:[aintif ft>KBredece_08or lef.t office, 12./ nbr was 
it changed at any time during plarn^^i f f * s tenure. 
^ In response to these facts regarding the position descrip- 

tion, the government^^ paper&i2./ suggest only two relatively 
minor problems. The government argues, first, ^ that the vacancy 
announcement described the p/jsition merely as a GS-14/15 (rather \ 
than as tl^e GS-15 as the position description required). But 
■ thflit vacancy announcement did not and it obviously could not vary 
the basic description of the job which, as indicated, called for 
a grade GS-15. Beyond that, the government seems to assert' that 
the continued viabilit^^ of the GS-15 position description in the 
context of plaintiff's application was the result of "inadver- 
^ance.^'" That bare suggestion, unsupported by*any evidence, is 
plainly insufficient to create a genuine issue of material 
fact.i^/ Moreover, there would haV0"been no basis whatever for 
the fi|udjd^n establishment of a^new, position description . The 
* *. posit^io^Ti was what it had always been: the highest legal position 
in one of the nirte regions in the Customs Service with duties and 
responsibilities equal to those of the other eight regions. 



38/ With respect to the replacement of a male employee . in the 
Tame job with a lower-paid female, see Thompson v. Sawyer , 6.78^ 
F.2d 257, 277 (D.C. Cir. 1982), 

39/ Voluminous briefs and ot^^r papers were filed by both sides. 

40/ The applicable regulations require agency management to 
maintain ^'current and accurate" descriptions of the position, and 
•they further provide that the appointing official must assure 
Kimsdlf, prior to appointment, that the position is properly^^ 
classified. Fede'ral Personnel Manual, ch. 511,^ subch. 4-4-^/ch 
312r subch. 4-5.^. \; 



ERIC . 




^65 



The government •'b nation for symmary judgment, which is. pred 
icated on the theory that the Baltimore Regional Office of the 
Ciistome Service is a separate **e6tabli8hment" within the meaning 
of the Equal Pay Act, will therefore be denied. 

.... ^ ' 

■ * • * ^ IV 

Both jplaintiff and the government have moved for^sbnunary 

judgment or partial summary judgment on alternative grounds. li/ 

These motions /revolve primarily around regulatipns modelled on 

the so-called'' Whitten AmendmentH/ which generally requires a 

federal employee to serve at least one year in a particular grade 

before beting eligible for promo«:ion to the next higher grade. A 

regulation, promulgated by 0PM provides that 

^ [a]n agencl^ head may advance an employee to a ' 

position a]t GS-12 or above only after he has 
I' served one lyear at. the next lower grade. 43/ ■ ^ 

Tyie goverijmcQt ^laims th«it the OPM regulation constitutes a. 

* bona ^ide senioi^^ty sd|jLem within th6 meaning of t^ie Equal Ray. 



AlJ The Court will allow plaintiff to file h^r amended complaint 
to accommodate her alternative summary judgm«^ motion. 

_42/ The Whitten Amendment is a congressionally-mandated rule of 
long standing. ^ v 

42/ .5 C.F.R. § 300.602 (1982). A directit^e of the Treasury ' ' 
Dfeparl^menf 6 General Counsel is to the same, effect. General 
Counsel Directive No* 2 (Revised) 115.3.1., p. 4). ' 



366 



Actli./ and that, irrespective of any other considerations, plain- 
tiff cannot complaiff of ft violation of that statute. That is so, 
the government reasons, because when Ms. Grumbine was appointed a 



Regional Counsel, she was only a GS~13 and she therefore could 

V 

not have been given a GS-15 'rating without running afoul of the 

45/ 

0PM regulation. While also making several other claims, — 

plaintiff responds prj.marily by pointing to the experience of one 

Paul Wils<iri who was appointed Regional .Counsel at the same time 

as plaintiff at the GS-15 grade even though he, too, lacked they 

46/ 

requisite one year irr' grade GS-14, — 

It IB obvious that, inasmuch as the one-year-in-grade 
requirement was waivedil^ for W^(|pP"'. the 0PM regulation i^ not. 
iron-clad as the government would make it appear. Certainly, if 
that regulation was enforced selectively or discriminatorily, 'the 



44/ The Equal' Pay Act mandates an exception to its requirement's 
V ' TrT a case where payment of differential^, wages is made "pursuant ^ 

to .... a seniority system . . . ." 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)<l). 

45/ Plaintiff also argues that the vacancy announcement itself 
"3Td not require service for one year at the GS-14 level, and that 
the 0PM regulation may not have applied at al:l because of the 
existence at the Treasury of two tracks, one for promotions and 
the other for appointments, with the regulation applying only to 
the formerw See Dowd v. United States , 713 F.2d 720 (Fed. Cir. 
1983). 

46/ Wilson, plaintiff, and the Regional Counsel for New Orleans 
we^re pArt of the^Bame selection process^ the positions were 
advertised simultaneously, the applicants were interviewed 
together, and the appointments were made at th6 same time. Only 
Margaret Mary Grumbine, the one female appointee, was classified 

«ind paid at a GS-14. 

„ • b 

:. ' .^7/ There is provision in the regulations fbr such a waiver. 

L * '"^5 6«e 5 Part 300, subpart F. 



ERIC 



o / 0 



government could not rely on it or the existence of a bona fide 
seniority system in defense of its actions, and the ex^:eption to 
•the Eqtial Pd^-Act would not apply. And of course- in this .^Wtext 
.a* iTr-5€Tiers ^-'such as under Title VII of the Civil* S^l^hj^ 
Acti-y-* the- quest ioi^ of 'discriminatory treatm^t is <.>rimarily one 

Of fact. There are here Sharf>ly differing views* on the operative 

V' . ^ / 

factors. , 



o% Thus, tl^ governmentj^contends t^fetv fofVarious reasons, - 
plain-tiff was^ot a^^tuated as was Wilson.. The -lattet,. according 
to the ^governm^nt, had more experience? his^' 3^sign;n8i^^ tQ a " 
J^epion^ Counsel -^sition entailed significant personal'^ardship; ^ 
and, unlike plaintiff, he specifically ^requested waiver ^o^tHe 
regulation on hardship grounds .15-^ Plaintiff, on the bt^^r. han^^ 
maintains that her prior experience was eqjjivaient to 




1 



— M*^?^ government's »i*gUpi.ent fth^t-the treatment, of Paul Wilson 
wa^**the prover,bial exception that proves »the rule"- (Memorandum 
of March 7, 1983 at i3) is fdr from a satisfactory* defense,, how- . 
evi^r. ^partipularly *in a job classification with pn'ly seven mem- 
ber's. Similarly unsatisfactory . is the government's assertion 
th»t the waiv^fr for Paul l^lson is a "i^-ed herring. '[which] • merelv 
serves to -distractf^^this CoUrt from the consistently ^ipplie^ 
-elibility requiremenrt^ " Response filed November, l^ 1983. While 
it may ultimately turn out that the Wilsbn departure from tlie 
rules was justified and does not af feet ' plaint i ff ' s claim, facts 
concerning his treatment are far from a "red herring"; they- 
directly caert Spubt on the ^government ' s contention t;hat the 
eligibility ^^ecfuiremerits wer.e, in fact / consistently applied. • 



368 



Wil»on' B,-li/ and that'/ unlike Wilson, she^was never given an 
opi^ortunity to apply ifor a hardship waiver.-^^ 

„ It is apparent f r©iH. ^au mere recitation of these contentions 
that genuine issues of material factjexist with respect to the 
.JviJJ^Ot motioi 

without a trial, 
^ denied". . " 



aU^xnative summary .Jw^^fe^t motionsJ[wfiich cannot be resoTved 

Accordingly, both of these motions will be 




Harold H. Greene 

united Sta'tes District Judg'e 



Datedj 



April 3, 1984 



X 



/ 



49/ See Shaw v. Bborstin , 517 F. Supp. 336 (D.D.C. 1981). 

50/, Plaintiff also a^rgues that the one-year time-in-grade 
Tequirement was established in this case only b^ an inadmissible 
affidavit. There is no mefrit to* that contention . Irrespective 
of'tVfe technical admissibility or inadmissibility of the affi- 
davit in question ^or parts thereof)* that document does no more 
than to ser\>e as a /:onduit for document^ (such as official direc- 
tives and the like) which the Court may consider in any event ^ 
under any reading of the Rules; e.g. ^ Rule 803(8) of the Federal 
Rules of Evidence. 



5lA^.Tqi pertnit a resolution of the disputed fa 
TTft the. previously-impose^ 6tay on discovery 



the Court will 



1( • ^ 




369 



, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTi* 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 



' MARGARET, MA^ GRUMBINE, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

UNITEH .states;- et al . , 

Def endantSr 



order 



Civil Action No. 82-1938 

_ FILED 

■ " JAMES DAVEY. Clerk 



For the i>a8on8 stated in the Opinioq^. filed this date in the 
abov^-captioned case, it is this ^ day of April, 1984, 

ORDERED That defendants* motion for summary judg^nent be and 
it, is hereby denied, and it is further 

ORDERED That plaintiff's alternative motion for summary 
judgtnent and defendants' alternative motion for summary judgment 
.be and they are hereby denied', and ,^^4^ further 

ORDERED That plaintiff's m<,t.ijDn to file an' amended complaint 



be and it is" hereby granted, and it is further . ' ; 

. ORDERED. That \ the stay of discovery be and it is hereby dis.r 
solved. ' ^ 



■J 




Harold H. Greene 



Ihiited States District Ju^ge 



' L 



er|c 



l, '. A - 



• .373